|
Authored by: ailuromancy on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 05:23 PM EDT |
Pretend my web shop infringes a patent because customers
can type their
credit card numbers into a text box (I am sure
typing a number into a widget
designed for text is far from obvious
to a patent examiner). I tell the troll
to go away, and he gets an
injunction. I can no longer distribute software that
takes credit card
numbers from a text box - but my business is selling
chocolate coated
scorpions, not software. What injunction can a troll get with
such a
patent that I would actually care about? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
So it would seem. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
Isn't it possible for Egghead to bring the supplier, such as Microsoft into the
suit?
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: toga on Saturday, May 04 2013 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
Last sentence - Hopefully the troll part of the could be reduced or
eliminated.
S/B - Hopefully the troll part of the software patent problem could
be reduced or eliminated.
---
'Intellectual Property'. Intellect is virtual. Property is real.
'Virtual Reality' Duh! Have Fun - Toga[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 04:08 AM EDT |
In AT&T v. Microsoft they said that the infringing machine was not made
until the final software medium was used to install the software on a general
purpose computer thus making it a new machine.
Since most of these fabulous inventions are systems and methods, the systems are
not built until the mark has installed the software and connected the computers
to the interweb.
The fabulous methods are only followed when a client connects to the rest of the
system. Thus, only the trader and his customers can ever be sued. The software
vendor never infringes on the system or the method. Neither do the system
vendors. Neither do the Interweb service providers.
So, the extortion mark has to be the one who built the system and used it. The
customers are, typically, not worth the cost of extortion.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 04:32 AM EDT |
Note that as long as the cost of successfully defending a lawsuit is
substantially more than the cost of the license fee being requested, it doesn't
matter if you can prove the patent invalid, or that you don't infringe, or that
you bought a product from a vendor who has a license, or any other defence that
you might win with.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|