|
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 07:55 AM EDT |
Please post corrections in THIS thread.
A summary in posts title may be helpful.
My apologies for the unintended anonymous post above ....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: coats on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 08:25 AM EDT |
The HTML and CSS for this page forces quite a wide layout: on my browser the
first line is forced to be at least 113 characters wide. And at my default
browser-width, I have to do a lot of horizontal scrolling.
It is
well established in human-factors engineering that the optimum layout for
reading comprehension is in the 50-65 character range. Moreover, widths in
excess of 90 characters (much less the current article's format of about 115)
seriously degrade readability.
As a long-time reader, I ask
you: Please fix! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 08:46 AM EDT |
Please stay off topic in these threads.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 08:56 AM EDT |
Oh it's a perfectly cromulent paper, and certainly necessary, but not really
what piques my curiosity about the patent mess.
The paper I want to see an analysis of the quality of the patents that go to
litigation, what percentage of those patents are invalidated.
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 09:49 AM EDT |
"In the past, “non-practicing entities” (NPEs), popularly known as “patent
trolls,” have helped small inventors profit from their inventions. Is this true
today or, given the unprecedented levels of NPE litigation, do NPEs reduce
innovation incentives? "
NPE litigation is where NPE's get the money to help small inventors get profit
from their inventions. The two are mutually dependent, not exclusive!
If you want to end NPE litigation, then pay inventors for their patents when
they come to you and ask you nicely to buy their patent or to pay a royalty for
an invention you are using or would like to use. When you laugh in their face
because they can not afford to enforce their patent, you drive them into that
hands of the evil NPE.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sproggit on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
When reading this paper, I am reminded of the maxim, "There are Lies,
there are Damned Lies, and there are
Statistics."
There may or may not be value in the analysis
performed here and the conclusions it draws: I suspect I lack the foundation or
experience to offer that critique.
I am much more interested by what is
missing.
For example, if the authors had surveyed their companies and
asked for details of:-
1. The amount of money spent in patent
litigation and/or payment of patent license costs (either as a plaintiff or a
defendant).
2. The amount of revenue earned through patent licensing.
3.
The company net profits in the same time period[s].
4. The company R&D
budget in the same time period[s].
then I suspect we would have much
more interesting data to work with. We could have computed the cost and revenue
spent/made through patents with the cost of R&D. I suspect we would see a
gradual increase in litigation numbers compared with conventional R&D.
We could also ask about market research done when asking clients about
features seen as desirable in products. We could then correlate those features
to the patents held or licensed by the company.
If we were to do
that, I suspect we'd learn 2 things...
First, that companies are
spending proportionally more of their budgets on patent activity, and only a
small number of companies will be net beneficiaries of such
activity.
Second, that [particular end user] customers rarely have an
interest in what patents the company holds. In other words, patents are being
used more to exclude competitors from market sectors than anything else.
With any luck there is a Darwinian fate awaiting the entire software
patent marketplace...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
The goal of the Patent system is to help "Inventors" to continue inventing, as
to better our society as a whole. My 'measurement' of the current
brokenness of the current patent system is very simple.
Of all
the money that exchanges hands, how much percentage wise, winds up in the
original inventors pocket?
If that number is not approximating 90% or
better then the current system is VERY broken. It is extremely broken by that
standard.
Putting money in some lawyers, or NPE's, pocket does nothing
towards the goal of the original patent system that our forefathers though
was so important. Adding more layers of profiting entities to the picture does
nothing to help the Inventor or benefit society. In my opinion the Inventor
should be permitted to license his/her invention to competitors, but never
"sell" that patent. Once it leaves the inventors hands it can no longer benefit
the originator as intended, and thus works to the actual detriment of our
society as a whole.
--- The Geeks IP Law: The future health of a
Corporation is measured as the inverse of the number of IP lawsuits they have
filed in the last 3 years. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
Put your Picks (or comments thereon) right here. URLs make it
very, very nice for future readers, who don't see the same
lineup on the right that we do right now.
No Noose Picks, GNUs Picks or Snoose Picks needed.
artp, who finally remembered his password, and didn't have to
interrupt PJ to get it back
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
For postings of transcriptions of documents from the Comes v.
MS trial. They seem to continue to be relevant to today's
news.
See "Comes v. MS" Link above.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
BOIL - Business Obsessed with Instigating Litigation
:)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|