|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 05 2013 @ 11:34 PM EST |
How does this news affect Apple v Samsung?
Apple wins design
patent for slide to
unlock [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: songmaster on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:11 AM EST |
Post any corrextions here pleeze. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: songmaster on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:13 AM EST |
Write nothing here about the main story, this thread is for other stuff only. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- After a few months with a Mac - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:46 AM EST
- Canada - Employers must accommodate staff's child-care requests, federal court rules - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 03:13 AM EST
- Kickstarter Open Source Death Star - Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 08:56 AM EST
- Off Topic Thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 09:52 AM EST
- XKCD - Bridge - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 09:59 AM EST
- XKCD - Bridge - Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:51 PM EST
- XKCD - Bridge - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 02:43 PM EST
- XKCD - Bridge - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 10:00 PM EST
- Patents should be abolished - Authored by: ws on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 11:11 AM EST
- The changing adware landscape - Authored by: hardmath on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 11:38 AM EST
- Please Acer - offer (Chr)ubuntu pre-loaded on the C7! - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:33 PM EST
- Most Facebook Users Have Taken a Break From the Site, Survey Finds - Authored by: artp on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 05:45 PM EST
- Remember Righthaven? On appeal, copyright troll looks just as bad - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 12:36 AM EST
- Open Source Ecology and their Global Village Construction Set - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 05:17 AM EST
- British court rejects MPAA argument .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 05:24 AM EST
- The Drone Memo: More Comedy About the Death of Freedom - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 05:36 AM EST
- European Court of Human Rights Ruling - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 08:06 AM EST
- Judge Sides with Wi-Fi Patent Troll Over Cisco - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 10:13 AM EST
- Lay in popcorn? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 12:21 PM EST
- Off Topic Thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 03:23 PM EST
- Our great, great, ... great grandfather Protungulatum Donnae - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 05:27 PM EST
|
Authored by: songmaster on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:15 AM EST |
Please link to the News story you're commenting on (read the "how to post
in HTML notes below the comment box).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Mono @ FOSDEM 2013: Cancelled - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 03:22 AM EST
- BlackBerry launches new Z10 phone across Canada - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 06:41 AM EST
- Patent Reform, System Should Be Abolished - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 01:43 PM EST
- 800 million Android smartphones, 300 million iPhones in active use by December 2013, study says - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 02:05 PM EST
- When . Will . They . Ever . Learn ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 02:20 PM EST
- Reasonable minds? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 03:42 PM EST
- Microsoft's Dell loan - unintended consequences - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 02:33 PM EST
- Packets of Death - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 07:08 PM EST
- Rumor: Microsoft looking to release Office for Linux in 2014 - Authored by: kjs on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 11:53 PM EST
- Connectors, controversy and the LGPL - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 05:21 AM EST
- Massive search fraud botnet seized by Microsoft and Symantec - Authored by: luvr on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 07:01 AM EST
- Why Michael Dell Really Had to Take Dell Private - Authored by: jbb on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 12:53 PM EST
- Ortiz Fumbles Again - Authored by: matth on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 05:40 PM EST
- Using exploits is theft - Authored by: RichardB on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 07:03 PM EST
|
Authored by: songmaster on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:18 AM EST |
Results from those ferreting about in the Comes v. MS archive. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:53 AM EST |
Allowing parties to tell juries that any single feature drives
demand leads to jury confusion...
...drugs may have only one ingredient
driving customer demand, but when a smartphone may be using 200,000 or more
patents, deciding what patent drives customer demand or to what degree ends up
confusing juries
There was only ONE feature that drove my
choice when buying my last smartphone: it was NOT made by Apple [nor
Sony...]. If juries would like to take that into consideration, then it is a
negative demand for an Apple [or Sony...] product and so should reduce any
damages. To be even more blunt, if the only product available was an Apple [or
Sony...] I would NOT buy it - I would go without it; thart is to say, if
the only product was Apple's [or Sony...'s] I would still not buy it [nor want
it as a gift from someone else].[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 09:48 AM EST |
Wouldn't it be ironic if the courts were to respond to the
smartphone patent wars -- which Apple and Microsoft got into to try to
destroy
Android -- by reevaluating how patent infringement damages
awards are
calculated, so that such litigation tactics no longer paid off and
companies
had to go back to innovating and competing in the marketplace
instead of trying
to clobber each other with questionable patents in
courtrooms?
A while back I got interested in how the
law 'swings' over time. I'll blame PJ
for that.
What I found was
there would often be shifts in interpretation, as the courts
realized that a
system that had been working for years no longer applied
because circumstances
had changed, or as the courts learned more about
a subject.
PJ had
mentioned this a couple of times, but it hadn't really sunk in. Then I
looked
at the history of abortion in Canada. Dr. Henry Morgenthaler had
been arrested
and charged for inducing an abortion several times. Each
time he was found not
guilty by the jury. The law was eventually changed.
There was a
Same-Sex marriage case where the courts ruled that Same-
Sex couples couldn't be
denied rights. Once again, the law was changed,
and that was only 25 years
after the infamous Bath House Raids.
Yes, I'm quoting Canadian cases.
I know more about them. I is
one.
Waynehttp://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 10:33 AM EST |
Say PJ,
I haven't seen Marc Webbink report in at least since last
September.
That is 5 months ago.
I do not recall any announcement as to his (dis)continued
assignment in overseeing Groklaw.
Would you please care to enlighten us?
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 11:40 AM EST |
First, thanks for covering the Newegg story!
I am intrigued with this idea
because many new devices
regularly get teardowns with the cost of the
components (and
cost of any hardware patents).
Sure
there is an
expectation for other income sources
especially if brought under some
contract. But you can
directly buy a device and not fund those services (for
example, only use Amazon on a non-Amazon tablet). So if the
cost of the
components exceed the cost of device, then is
the
sum cost of any other
patents, including any
software-related
ones, zero? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 11:54 AM EST |
I liked newegg before this because of their customer service..
After this I love newegg![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gettys on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:34 PM EST |
I consulted for the defense team on one of these cases some
years
ago, and was quite upset when I heard the case had been
lost. As
I was the editor of the HTTP standards document, I'm pretty
expert
at the base capabilities of the web.
I consider the OpenMarket patents to be particularly
egregious,
and am delighted to see them bite the dust.
When I read the three patents, it became clear to me the
patent
system had been gamed.
The first patent describes the method that OpenMarket used
to
implement their shopping cart before the days cookies were
added
to HTTP. The methods they had to come up with were pretty
messy;
you had to store an session ID in the URL that would
propagate
from one phase of the shopping experience to the next. IIRC
(this
is about 4 years ago), I believed there was prior art for
this
method, though I forget why I have that opinion as my memory
is
getting cloudy, and have not reviewed what I dug up. I
don't
think the prior art used at trial was what I think I found
though;
what was described doesn't ring a bell (I suspect they found
better prior art). The method itself is quite specific to
how
OpenMarket's system worked.
But current systems use cookies (for better or worse) and it
is
much easier to implement a shopping system; no one uses the
method
described by that first patent. And having some sort of a
session
ID clearly predates the OpenMarket system in all sorts of
systems,
back to early computing systems (and probably before). So
non-
infringement struck me as also a clear defense, as well as
prior
art.
What really stuck in my craw, however, was the sequence of
the
patents. The second patent, issued years later, was
broader, and
the third, issued yet more years later, so broad as to cover
much
of computer science. I think you could have read the third
patent
on almost any complex system out there; it's bad enough that
they
went after the entire on-line shopping industry, but who
knows
where it could have led.
It's clear (to me) the lawyers successively beat down the
patent
office until they poor patent office examiners gave up.
This kind of gaming the patent system (so long as we have
software
patents) has got to be stamped out.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 05:45 PM EST |
I agree with the idea of basing the costs on the difference resulting from using
a patented technology verses the the best available non-patented technology;this
sounds like courts would be determining the value of a patent.
How does this work with a standards-essential patent? Is the value based on
the difference between selling something and not selling anything at all? Or
should the licensing for standard patents be available the same rate regardless
of who is licensing it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|