|
Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 12:51 PM EDT |
So they can be fixed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2013 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2013 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 12:53 PM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2013 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Bitcoin: What is it? - Khan Academy - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 02:46 PM EDT
- The Beat Goes On - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 06:14 PM EDT
- Bruce Schneier - The Public/Private Surveillance Partnership - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 01:08 AM EDT
- End Times? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 02:05 AM EDT
- Kelowna is the Krime Kapital of Kanada's Kopyright Skofflaws - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 07:14 AM EDT
- Smartphones - more addictive than hard drugs? - Authored by: complex_number on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 01:46 PM EDT
- Chinese Mostly Harmless? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 07:12 PM EDT
- New FCC chairman - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 06 2013 @ 12:16 AM EDT
- Samsung and BlackBerry are secure enough for Pentagon - but not Apple? - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, May 06 2013 @ 07:58 AM EDT
- No Comment? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 06 2013 @ 04:39 PM EDT
- Google declared a monopolist. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 06 2013 @ 10:29 AM EDT
|
Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
Thank you for your assistance
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2013 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 01:10 PM EDT |
For damages!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ailuromancy on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
Think for a moment about: 'my hand', 'my shirt', 'my country'.
Unfortunately
English does not draw a distinction. When it comes to
trolls, 'their bridge' is
not a part of their body, something they built
or even something bought. It is
'the bridge that the troll found,
and decided to build his office under'. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 01:59 PM EDT |
Always knew there were reasons I shop at New Egg. Now there's
another.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: toga on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 05:03 PM EDT |
Why is it legal to sue users and not the producers of infringing patents? If
it is legal to sue the users then change the law. It seems to me that if one
product is the source of the so called infringement then that source should
be the party being sued. Hopefully the troll part of the could be reduced or
eliminated.
---
'Intellectual Property'. Intellect is virtual. Property is real.
'Virtual Reality' Duh! Have Fun - Toga[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 01:14 AM EDT |
Maybe a partial fix would be to allow "class defences", by analogy
with "class actions". If a user like a restaurant business is being
sued for infringing a patent based on technology that many other similar
businesses are likely to be using in the same way, allow them to apply to the
court to establish a "class defence", which can be joined by any other
potential defendant in the class. Joining such a class would mean that any
current or future infrigement suit on the patent against the class member would
be merged into the class defence suit.
The idea would be to allow users to pool their resources in defence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 04:57 AM EDT |
The problem is that all they invent and innovate are ways of
litigating money out of others rather than creating anything
useful to anyone.
They play exactly the same role and have the same effects in
society and in the economy as corruption and criminal
extortion and protection rackets.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: complex_number on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 08:22 AM EDT |
License 1 - From the patent owner a manufacturer to produce a component
License 2 - From the patent owner bigger manufacturer to include said component
in a bigger widget
License 3 - From the patent owner to the end user who has the temerity to
actually buy said widget in order to use it.
Frankly, this is plain silly. If I buy a component I expect to have paid all the
license fees upfront. The last thing I want is for the plethora of patent
holders to come after me again for using this component in something.
Then there is the end user. They expect to have paid all license fees up-front.
This may well NOT be the case when it comes to 3d Printers.
People/companies/trolls will be patenting everything in sight adding the words
with a 3D printer'.
Profit????
As someone who has lived and worked in the US in the past it is really sad to
see them basically ending up suing themselves into oblivion/3rd world.
What happens when all that is left in the US is the military and a gazillion
lawyers with no one left to sue? Will the lawyers emulate the lemming?
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Charles888 on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 09:11 AM EDT |
One the more clearly described
take downs of the trolls value
arguments:
"The absurd notion that trolling
is somehow pro-competitive
because it creates a market for
the sale and acquisition of
patents raises the question of
what competition is being
promoted by such a practice and
is it something that should be
promoted. If the idea is to
incentivize companies to invest
in technology development for
the sole purpose of generating
patents that can be sold, this
is a misguided suggestion where
a troll is acquiring the patent
from the innovator"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Monday, May 06 2013 @ 09:27 AM EDT |
Today's extortionists tell us they are different. Proponents tell us they are a
new breed of company, a new business model, that is misunderstood. Protection
Rackets are, in fact, good for society because they are creating "a capital
market for extortion" by buying payments from victims and selling licenses
of protection to businesses who don't want their business firebombed. This
helps "turbocharge business success" "by realigning business
participant incentives, making extortion shakedowns more liquid".
Protection rackets are socially beneficial because they reduce the costs of
extortion transactions to the extent that protection rackets facilitate the
clearance of extortion costs before proprietors invest in starting a business,
this is a clear benefit.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 06 2013 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
it came years or a decade ago at least, and its common sense
law.IF mac milk got bad milk and sold it and you complained
and in past sued macs then they would have to prove and sue
the person they go thte milk form duplicating the same suit
twice costing time and effort not needed. SO NOW if the end
person can prove a copyright or patent is violated THNE they
simply see newegg as a liscencee and can in fact go after
th eperson giving the liscensee....
same fo rother types a suits...
In this case the americans can do with a lil
canadianization...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 06 2013 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
If they are suing users it is because users are the ones that literally infringe
the claims.
As you are so fond of asserting, "software per se" is not patentable.
Accordingly, what gets patented are methods for doing things.
When Microsoft makes or sells software for doing that thing, they aren't
actually doing that thing.
When a user buys the software and runs it to do that thing according to the
claimed method, that is when the infringing occurs. Microsoft may have
contributed to the infringement, but the way the claims have to be worded, it is
the user that does the actual infringement.
If you all would change your stance and argue for making software patentable,
someday far fewer users might get sued.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|