|
Authored by: Kilz on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 01:13 AM EDT |
Please list the mistake in the title of your post. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- RIIA -> SIIA - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 02:18 AM EDT
- RIIA -> SIIA - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 10:50 AM EDT
- RIIA -> SIIA - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 12:33 PM EDT
- Balko -> Balto - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 12:11 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Kilz on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 01:15 AM EDT |
For all posts that are not On Topic. Please make all links
clickable with HTML.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Patentology: There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Video Codec - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 04:36 AM EDT
- Microsoft Invents Voice-Controlled Camera for Windows Phone - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 10:30 AM EDT
- Whatever became of MeeGo? - Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 11:22 AM EDT
- U.K.: Where reading can send you to jail - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 12:01 PM EDT
- T-Mobile's MetroPCS drops net neutrality lawsuit, leaving Verizon to challenge rules alone - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 01:29 PM EDT
- Phone companies win patent battle over 'ringback' services - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 01:44 PM EDT
- Samsung? Get Nova for speed and ICS Icons - wheeee ;-) - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 04:31 PM EDT
- Off Topic - Is Google open source patent license for VP8 Open? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 05:06 PM EDT
- LulzSec hacker: 'Internet is a world devoid of empathy' - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 05:17 PM EDT
- The Apple wormhole where taxes disappear - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 07:55 PM EDT
- Prenda lawyer has a bad day - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 09:11 PM EDT
- Free loading ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 10:32 PM EDT
- Free loading ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 04:23 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Kilz on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 01:17 AM EDT |
Please mention the name of the news story in the title of the
top post. A link to the story is helpful as they eventually
leave the Home page. That way people can read the story
commented on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 01:18 AM EDT |
Please post all transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for PJ.
Please post the html in "Plain Old Text" mode so she can
easily copy it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 01:35 AM EDT |
Would an affirmative defence stating that the PAE (Troll) does not have rights
to the patents in question force out the ownership chain through discovery?
If so, that could sting a bit.
--Alma[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Curiouser.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 02:47 AM EDT
- Curious.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 11:43 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Davo.Sydney on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 02:05 AM EDT |
I recall that EV1 paid SCO for a license that it should not have bought, and as
it turns out, was not needed (EV1 were $800,000 victims of SCO's FUD, the CEO
was actually 'Fearful' of a lawsuit). According to the Wikipedia article,
(Please correct me and the Wikipedia article if this is wrong):
"A Utah court document[7] filed on April 5, 2006, revealed that Robert
Marsh, co-founder and CEO of EV1, was misled by SCO's Philip Langer's claims
when making the deal, and that EV1 paid $800,000 for the licence.[8]"
The Wikipedia references:
([7] http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/IBM-835-Exhibit_224.pdf)
([8] http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/page/67/ (The article has moved from where
Wikipedia reference's it, but I found toward the bottom of the page in one of
"Jeremy's Blog", dated October 19,2006)
Even thou the license may not have been for Patents,(It was a license for
"Intellectual Property"), a comment from EV1, now known as "The
Planet Internet Services", would carry some weight to this issue would it
not?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 02:52 AM EDT |
It appears to me that a possible solution to the problem (other than abolishing
software patents altogether which, while maybe better, is harder to acheive)
would be that no court case is allowed to go forward until plaintiff has
identified specifically which patents are infringed and how.
No airy-fairy rubbish, the list is it, and no adding stuff later on. If you
don't know that someone is actually infringing, you should not be bringing a
lawsuit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 05:20 AM EDT |
But the real problem doesn't occur to them,
which is that software
shouldn't be patentable in the first
place. That truly is the core
problem.
This is wrong. The current law may or may not be
readable
in a way that makes software unpatentable. But calling that
the
"core problem" ignores all the damage that is happening
in other arenas.
Software patents are not the core problem;
software just makes the symptoms
painfully obvious.
The core problem is twofold:
- Patent offices,
and the United States bears the main
burden of shame here, are far too ready to
give out patents
for work that doesn't deserve it.
- Defending a patent
action is far too costly.
The fast pace of software
development and the near-
infinite complexity and variability attainable in
software
exacerbate these problems enormously, but they are problems
in all
fields. It is perfectly possible to obtain a vague,
patent in, say,
microelectronics, which would be obvious to
someone whose business is
microelectronics. It is perfectly
possible to sue a company or all of its
customers in the
classic PAE pattern. It has nothing to do with software.
The USPTO, US courts and unscrupulous patent-holders are
doing terrific damage
in all sorts of fields, from
microbiology to pharmaceuticals to electronics to
model
train sets.
Patents are meant to encourage innovation. When we
think
that, we all picture the tinkerer in his garage who comes up
with a
great idea, patents it and gets rich. It's time to
ditch that picture and
recognise that patents, as they
stand, generally do not reward invention. The
guy tinkering
in his
garage probably can't afford to take one
out.
It's also not really obvious that software and algorithms
shouldn't be patentable. I think the MP3
patent is an instructive example;
Fraunhoffer invested a lot
of money in basic
research into aurology and
acoustics, discovered a lot of
interesting things and packaged it into a truly
innovative
algorithm for compressing music. They made it free for
playback,
and then free for open-source encoders when it was
pointed out this was a
problem. This seems the sort of
research and innovation that should be
rewarded by the
patent system and the sort of attitude we like to see from
patent holders. It's not clear to me why saying, "Oh, but
it's
software," should mean that this sort of
research and
innovation
shouldn't be rewarded.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- aurology ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 07:14 AM EDT
- SIIA Tells the FTC What Patent Trolls Are Doing to the Software Industry ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 07:46 AM EDT
- SIIA Tells the FTC What Patent Trolls Are Doing to the Software Industry ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 11:59 AM EDT
- SIIA Tells the FTC What Patent Trolls Are Doing to the Software Industry ~pj - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 11:59 AM EDT
- The research should be rewarded != it should be patentable. - Authored by: ByteJuggler on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 12:05 PM EDT
- The research should be rewarded != it should be patentable. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 12:16 PM EDT
- The research should be rewarded != it should be patentable. - Authored by: albert on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 05:39 PM EDT
- Well, maybe that's why you're confused - Authored by: cjk fossman on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- Well, maybe that's why you're confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 05:07 AM EDT
- Well, maybe that's why you're confused - Authored by: albert on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 09:47 AM EDT
- I think YOU'RE confused. - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 12:24 PM EDT
- Er, right - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 05:24 AM EDT
- Er, right - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 07:14 AM EDT
- Er, right - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 08:07 AM EDT
- Well, maybe that's why you're confused - Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 01:02 PM EDT
- discovered a lot of interesting things - Authored by: Wol on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 02:58 PM EDT
- MP3 algorithm = abstract concept = not patentable - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 23 2013 @ 11:53 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 09:01 AM EDT |
The innovative companies that make up SIIA’s
membership rely
upon patent protection to protect their
inventions... SIIA members have
benefited from owning
thousands of patents.
You can't have
it both ways. They want to hang on to
their patents, while in the same breath
they complain about
others attacking them with patents.
When the
members of this organization announce publicly
that they are ready to renounce
their own patents as part of
a larger solution involving elimination of
software patents
they will gain more credibility in my eyes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 10:56 AM EDT |
But the real problem doesn't occur to them,
which is that software
shouldn't be patentable in the first
place.
There's a very good
reason they ignored this. It's because
they're responding to a request for
comments on Patent
Assertion Entities. Not a request for comment on all the
ills of the software patent world.
Claiming it "didn't occur to them"
is
disingenuous. Whether software should be patentable at all
isn't the
question at issue. Like any good laywer, they
fought the battle they were
asked
to fight. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 11:50 AM EDT |
Perhaps one solution to this would be to require patent holders to clearly
identify what patents are infringed and how at first contact with the
mark^H^H^H^H infringer. If you don't clearly identify, you lose the right to
sue.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 04:26 PM EDT |
That's SIIA, not RIAA :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 01:12 AM EDT |
Which video card manufactures pay Moto a license for h.264 interlaced
video patents. AMD, NVidea, Intel? No not the hardware manufacturers but
only the software manufacturers? Now MS?
I thought this website was against software patents?
Or is it we hate software patents unless they are owned by the almighty
Google, our one and only God?
If we hate software patents what makes Google unique and uncopyable?
Their lawyers?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|