|
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 11:07 PM EDT |
...
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 11:08 PM EDT |
...
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- How Boston exposes America’s dark post-9/11 bargain - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 11:40 PM EDT
- Barnes & Noble and Android - Authored by: nyarlathotep on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 12:57 AM EDT
- U.S. gives big, secret push to Internet surveillance - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 03:18 AM EDT
- Microsoft Respects No One - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 07:59 AM EDT
- Wikipedia Moved from MySQL To MariaDB 5.5 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 09:38 AM EDT
- Is the government evil ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 12:23 PM EDT
- Is the government evil ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 12:51 PM EDT
- Yes. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 12:35 PM EDT
- Texas Judge Rejects FBI Attempt to Use Spyware to Infiltrate Unknown Suspect's Computer - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- MS Word Bites Again - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 05:57 PM EDT
- Historical Supreme Court audio recordings released - Authored by: xtifr on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- What Are They Eating? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 06:11 PM EDT
- Dessication - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 01:45 PM EDT
- Samsung's Nightmare - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 09:23 PM EDT
- Smartest Machine on Earth - PBS, IBM, Watson and Jeopardy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 10:13 PM EDT
- Abolish the Patent System - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 11:58 AM EDT
|
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 11:09 PM EDT |
Please include a link to the story in your post in case the news pick scrolls
off the Growlaw home page.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 11:10 PM EDT |
Thank you for your help and support.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 11:22 PM EDT |
No chance of those getting through.
Tufty
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 11:56 PM EDT |
But it is fairly sensible. The Prior Art issue has bedeviled Hardware,
Software, Bioproducts, and Processes for years. Nestlé is currently trying
to
ram through a patent on a traditional herbal treatment for example. The
company
is upset at being caught gaming the system, and denies it was
doing anything
wrong. Of course it still wants the patent to issue.
Then there is
Johnson Matthey with their NO2 producing CRT device.
Every device before that
produced NO2, so exactly why JM was issued a
patent (JM knew this before they
applied) is unknown.
The filing will upset certain people. I can't
wait to hear the screaming.
Wayne http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 12:51 AM EDT |
The proposal "Require Losing Patentees to Pay Costs and Expenses, Including
Attorneys’ Fees" would dissuade trolls to some extent. Unfortunately, it
would for all intents and purposes take patent protection away from entities
without deep pockets, in particular, lone inventors of the type who were the
intended beneficiaries of patent protection. Imagine such an inventor has a net
worth of several hundred thousand dollars and has a patent infringed by a large
corporation. The corporation could conspicuously run up its legal costs to the
point where a loss by the small inventor would be ruinous. The situation is
nearly that bad now, since the cost of merely prosecuting an infringement case
is already extremely high, but at least that cost is controllable by the
plaintiff, there is a downside limit. Under B&N's proposal there is no way
to bring an infringement suit, even a valid one, without exposing oneself to an
unlimited downside risk.
The base issue is that patent issues are being resolved slowly and expensively
through the legal system, in which asymmetric resources often determine the
final outcome, instead of being settled quickly and inexpensively, for instance,
by a board of those "skilled in the (relevant) arts". The vast legal
costs in this process would best be eliminated by removing the lawyers and the
courts completely from the determination of whether or not an invention is
obvious, or infringing, by referring the matter to neutral arbiters who work in
the field.
It would also help if the patent office raised the bar many notches, so that
patents were not issued for trivial inventions. Since the PTO seem to be
incapable of doing this by itself, perhaps they should be limited by law to
issuing 10,000 patents a year, all patents to be issued at the end of the year,
and these only after an outside board has ordered all of that year's
"acceptable by the PTO" patents by significance.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nyarlathotep on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
"entities that have contributed nothing meaningful to society
or the economy"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 05:17 AM EDT |
We face repeated allegations that anyone using Wi-Fi, anyone using
3G, anyone using MP3, anyone with an e-commerce website, anyone using Ethernet,
and, recently, anyone using InfiniBand technology, to name a few, is infringing
and must pay a hefty price to license purportedly essential
patents.
Essentially, they are arguing that no patents should be
enforceable on anything that is useful enough to become ubiquitous.
That's
basically a "no patents whatsover, please" stance.
Many of the things they
list here tend to involve hardware catered to a specific purpose using specific
technology and circuitry. If you can't patent those, you can't patent
anything.
Of course, this specific list is far too unspecific to figure out
what kind of patents they are objecting to. If they complain about "Wifi" being
patentable, is it something like "use of a transmitter/receiver in a portable
computer to access communication media via a transmitter/receiver in a fixed
housing" or something similarly broad and ridiculous? Or is it something like
specific circuitry, or specific modulations?
Similarly with "Ethernet" and
"MP3". If any patent required to implement them is supposed to be
unenforceable, than the premise is basically "nothing that works well enough to
become a de-facto standard should be patentable", and then we might as well stop
patents altogether, not just software patents.
In light of the patent
quagmire, the proposal of Richard Stallman to except implementations on
general-purpose computers has some merit.
One sickness of software patents is
that, in essence, too many people are successful by taking something trivial and
tacking "on a computer" onto it.
However, computing devices are becoming
ubiquitous so it isn't a solution either to prohibit anything to be patentable
if you merely can implement it on a computer, or even if nothing but
implementation on a computing device makes any sense.
Personally, I find the
proposal by Stallman to just exclude implementations running on general
purpose computers from patent coverage an interesting compromise. However,
things like "Smartphones" can be reasonably considered "general computing
devices" in some respects and specialized devices in other respects, so it might
be difficult to get to any clear definitions.
But the rough demarcation line,
however it would be drawn exactly, is worth thinking about. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I think they are out of their league - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 06:01 AM EDT
- I think they are out of their league - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 09:07 AM EDT
- B & N Stands On Solid Ground, - Authored by: albert on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 12:18 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- Hardware? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 05:35 PM EDT
- Hardware? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 09:12 PM EDT
- The key point is "Anyone Using.." - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 06:57 PM EDT
- I think they are out of their league - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 28 2013 @ 10:53 PM EDT
- Proof of non-obviousness - Authored by: ghopper on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 02:09 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 05:39 AM EDT |
If you look at the list of companies that have put forward submissions to
the Patent Assertion Entity Activities Workshop
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/pae/index.shtm one finds Microsoft's
name. Curious then that it is in the news today that ZTE just handed over
a pile of money in a typical Microsoft intellectual property shakedown.
This double standard would be laughable if it weren't so ugly. Way to stay
classy Microsoft.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Doghouse on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 06:00 AM EDT |
Suggestion 2 ("Require Actual Reduction to Practice and Commercialization")
is seductive (and one we've all come up with here many times). But it's too
simplistic, with obvious unwanted consequences as it stands.
The problem
that this suggestion is aimed at seems to be entities that exist simply to
litigate. Simply requiring that a patent be "reduced to practice and
commercialized", by contrast, impacts anyone who has not yet brought -
may not even be able to bring - their legitimate patent to actualisation.
In particular, like the current system, it plays heavily in favour of large
businesses over smaller ones (and even more so over individuals).
This
time the issue is resources - who has the resources needed to bring a real
patent to practice (or worse, to the market). If you don't have them yourself,
or can't find someone to with them prepared to do the job on your behalf, you
effectively don't have a patent. The big guys can take your invention,
productise it and make millions from it. You can't get a penny, because under
this framing of the law you don't have standing to claim. You may have been
perfectly willing to license it, but they simply weren't prepared to pay (or
offered derisory terms, safe in the knowledge that your choices were to take
their terms or get nothing). Effectively you'd be penalised, not for any
trolling behaviour, but for simply being too small. That's not what's needed,
any more than the current system. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 02:08 AM EDT |
Sweden already has #1 and #2. Those two alone aids greatly in limitng the amount
of patents. And the Swedush Patents and Registration Office is quite restrictive
with what they grant.
Still, we are #3 in the world when it comes to patents per capita, but without
patent trolls.
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/innovation/patents-by-population.aspx
(but #5 according to
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2011/10/worlds-leading-nations-innov
ation-and-technology/224/#slide5)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GrueMaster on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 02:40 AM EDT |
And this is why I bought the Nook Color over any other tablet at the time. And
today, I just bought the Nook HD Tablet. I will continue to support B&N as
long as they stand up to bullies from Texas and Redmond, Washington.
---
You've entered a dark place. You are likely to be eaten by a Grue![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|