Slashdot Mirror
Domain: wikipatents.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to wikipatents.com.
Comments · 21
-
Re:Reform is needed.
Just wait for lawyers to start patenting their particular model of "lawyering" and then the fun REALLY starts.
You mean like a trial lawyer patenting a method for making jury selections? Sorry, it's already happened, and I haven't seen any *fun* resulting...
-
WikiPatents
Is there some sort of public RFC system on patents? Is there a "write your senator" sort of mechanism for the scenario where the public hears about a patent application before it's awarded and wants to make sure the patent investigator understands the situation?
There is WikiPatents.
-
WikiPatents? Good idea!
I think this is the first time I've heard of WikiPatents at all, and I don't think it's been featured on the front page yet.
I'm thinking this would be very useful in the patent approval process, not just after the fact. Suppose it worked like this: The second you file a patent, it would be published. Before it could be approved, it would have to be public for some length of time, during which anyone could present prior art or arguments for "obviousness".
On the other hand, I think they're being entirely too kind. From their FAQ:
Patent Examiners do an excellent job reviewing patents in the limited amount of time they are allotted to review patents. However, no single individual can accumulate all of the most relevant information to review a patent within 10 hours, 100 hours, or even 1,000 hours.
On the other hand, based on the "quality" of the patents which get through (like this one!), it really doesn't seem like Patent Examiners even bother to Google it before approving.
-
WikiPatents
http://www.wikipatents.com/ may be a good place to post the prior art. It is a site for "community patent review".
-
Re:Bias against big firms? Wanna see overly
broad, nebulous, all-inclusive-for-them/all-deprivation-for-others patent?
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4594817.html
http://www.wikipatents.com/4594817.html,
then, compare to:
http://www.yesicanusechopsticks.com/thesequel/capsule/
It's high time that even decades-old patents be overhauled... We have innumerable types of pens, tables, chairs, automobiles, book shelves, sofas, scanner and printer devices, cabinets, trash cans, shoes, refrigerators... Is anyone out there sitting on proof that there is a cartel collecting royalties on THOSE items or numerous others?
It's not as if a bunk bed is as seminal as a special pain-free needle/injector for patients to self-administer multiple times a day, and not as if it is as significant as wiper blades or the Botts Dots, or special alloys...
But, for big companies to possibly preempt smaller firms and individuals from obtaining patents on "disruptive" technology or other things, the only defense left is to immediately and constantly diffuse/dissseminate information and details on every step along the way, with anciliary information to work around and back toward the patent. This will teach the big bastards they are NOT going to be allowed to hem in tech and non-tech patents for themselves, their leashpullers, and those that otherwise bow to them.
-
The patents at issue
The article didn't give details regarding what patents are at issue. I went to PACER and searched for patent cases involving Rembrandt filed since January 1, 2007. Most of the cases were filed by Rembrandt Technologies, although one of them was filed by Motorola seeking declaratory judgment that it was not infringing on any valid claims owned by Rembrandt Technologies.
The complaints were not all the same, but here is the list of patents cited in the complaints:
An important question is whether it really matters whether Rembrandt Technologies hired the original inventors or not, or whether Rembrandt Technologies practices the inventions or not. Rembrandt Technologies purchased the patents and is trying to license, not practice the inventions, thus it is considered to be a patent troll. But, would it have been better had the original patent holder had been the one to file these suits?
The rights involved would not be any different, just the entity able to enforce those rights. If the original patent holder was a competitor of the defendants, then there would be more incentive to file these suits to stop competitors from practicing the invention altogether, rather than trying to obtain licensing fees. At least with a third-party patent holder, there is an incentive for the patent holder to license the patents broadly.
One way of looking at suits and transactions is that the original patent holder capitalized on the potential value of enforcing the patents by transferring those enforcement rights to a buyer willing to take on the enforcement risks. There are plenty of risks involved in enforcing patents (e.g., the cost of attorneys fees or the possibility that an adverse construction of the patent rights will destroy their enforcement value). Whether the original patent holder or a third-party takes on those risks changes who takes on those risks, but doesn't change the scope of the patents themselves.
-
The patents at issue
The article didn't give details regarding what patents are at issue. I went to PACER and searched for patent cases involving Rembrandt filed since January 1, 2007. Most of the cases were filed by Rembrandt Technologies, although one of them was filed by Motorola seeking declaratory judgment that it was not infringing on any valid claims owned by Rembrandt Technologies.
The complaints were not all the same, but here is the list of patents cited in the complaints:
An important question is whether it really matters whether Rembrandt Technologies hired the original inventors or not, or whether Rembrandt Technologies practices the inventions or not. Rembrandt Technologies purchased the patents and is trying to license, not practice the inventions, thus it is considered to be a patent troll. But, would it have been better had the original patent holder had been the one to file these suits?
The rights involved would not be any different, just the entity able to enforce those rights. If the original patent holder was a competitor of the defendants, then there would be more incentive to file these suits to stop competitors from practicing the invention altogether, rather than trying to obtain licensing fees. At least with a third-party patent holder, there is an incentive for the patent holder to license the patents broadly.
One way of looking at suits and transactions is that the original patent holder capitalized on the potential value of enforcing the patents by transferring those enforcement rights to a buyer willing to take on the enforcement risks. There are plenty of risks involved in enforcing patents (e.g., the cost of attorneys fees or the possibility that an adverse construction of the patent rights will destroy their enforcement value). Whether the original patent holder or a third-party takes on those risks changes who takes on those risks, but doesn't change the scope of the patents themselves.
-
The patents at issue
The article didn't give details regarding what patents are at issue. I went to PACER and searched for patent cases involving Rembrandt filed since January 1, 2007. Most of the cases were filed by Rembrandt Technologies, although one of them was filed by Motorola seeking declaratory judgment that it was not infringing on any valid claims owned by Rembrandt Technologies.
The complaints were not all the same, but here is the list of patents cited in the complaints:
An important question is whether it really matters whether Rembrandt Technologies hired the original inventors or not, or whether Rembrandt Technologies practices the inventions or not. Rembrandt Technologies purchased the patents and is trying to license, not practice the inventions, thus it is considered to be a patent troll. But, would it have been better had the original patent holder had been the one to file these suits?
The rights involved would not be any different, just the entity able to enforce those rights. If the original patent holder was a competitor of the defendants, then there would be more incentive to file these suits to stop competitors from practicing the invention altogether, rather than trying to obtain licensing fees. At least with a third-party patent holder, there is an incentive for the patent holder to license the patents broadly.
One way of looking at suits and transactions is that the original patent holder capitalized on the potential value of enforcing the patents by transferring those enforcement rights to a buyer willing to take on the enforcement risks. There are plenty of risks involved in enforcing patents (e.g., the cost of attorneys fees or the possibility that an adverse construction of the patent rights will destroy their enforcement value). Whether the original patent holder or a third-party takes on those risks changes who takes on those risks, but doesn't change the scope of the patents themselves.
-
The patents at issue
The article didn't give details regarding what patents are at issue. I went to PACER and searched for patent cases involving Rembrandt filed since January 1, 2007. Most of the cases were filed by Rembrandt Technologies, although one of them was filed by Motorola seeking declaratory judgment that it was not infringing on any valid claims owned by Rembrandt Technologies.
The complaints were not all the same, but here is the list of patents cited in the complaints:
An important question is whether it really matters whether Rembrandt Technologies hired the original inventors or not, or whether Rembrandt Technologies practices the inventions or not. Rembrandt Technologies purchased the patents and is trying to license, not practice the inventions, thus it is considered to be a patent troll. But, would it have been better had the original patent holder had been the one to file these suits?
The rights involved would not be any different, just the entity able to enforce those rights. If the original patent holder was a competitor of the defendants, then there would be more incentive to file these suits to stop competitors from practicing the invention altogether, rather than trying to obtain licensing fees. At least with a third-party patent holder, there is an incentive for the patent holder to license the patents broadly.
One way of looking at suits and transactions is that the original patent holder capitalized on the potential value of enforcing the patents by transferring those enforcement rights to a buyer willing to take on the enforcement risks. There are plenty of risks involved in enforcing patents (e.g., the cost of attorneys fees or the possibility that an adverse construction of the patent rights will destroy their enforcement value). Whether the original patent holder or a third-party takes on those risks changes who takes on those risks, but doesn't change the scope of the patents themselves.
-
The patents at issue
The article didn't give details regarding what patents are at issue. I went to PACER and searched for patent cases involving Rembrandt filed since January 1, 2007. Most of the cases were filed by Rembrandt Technologies, although one of them was filed by Motorola seeking declaratory judgment that it was not infringing on any valid claims owned by Rembrandt Technologies.
The complaints were not all the same, but here is the list of patents cited in the complaints:
An important question is whether it really matters whether Rembrandt Technologies hired the original inventors or not, or whether Rembrandt Technologies practices the inventions or not. Rembrandt Technologies purchased the patents and is trying to license, not practice the inventions, thus it is considered to be a patent troll. But, would it have been better had the original patent holder had been the one to file these suits?
The rights involved would not be any different, just the entity able to enforce those rights. If the original patent holder was a competitor of the defendants, then there would be more incentive to file these suits to stop competitors from practicing the invention altogether, rather than trying to obtain licensing fees. At least with a third-party patent holder, there is an incentive for the patent holder to license the patents broadly.
One way of looking at suits and transactions is that the original patent holder capitalized on the potential value of enforcing the patents by transferring those enforcement rights to a buyer willing to take on the enforcement risks. There are plenty of risks involved in enforcing patents (e.g., the cost of attorneys fees or the possibility that an adverse construction of the patent rights will destroy their enforcement value). Whether the original patent holder or a third-party takes on those risks changes who takes on those risks, but doesn't change the scope of the patents themselves.
-
The patents at issue
The article didn't give details regarding what patents are at issue. I went to PACER and searched for patent cases involving Rembrandt filed since January 1, 2007. Most of the cases were filed by Rembrandt Technologies, although one of them was filed by Motorola seeking declaratory judgment that it was not infringing on any valid claims owned by Rembrandt Technologies.
The complaints were not all the same, but here is the list of patents cited in the complaints:
An important question is whether it really matters whether Rembrandt Technologies hired the original inventors or not, or whether Rembrandt Technologies practices the inventions or not. Rembrandt Technologies purchased the patents and is trying to license, not practice the inventions, thus it is considered to be a patent troll. But, would it have been better had the original patent holder had been the one to file these suits?
The rights involved would not be any different, just the entity able to enforce those rights. If the original patent holder was a competitor of the defendants, then there would be more incentive to file these suits to stop competitors from practicing the invention altogether, rather than trying to obtain licensing fees. At least with a third-party patent holder, there is an incentive for the patent holder to license the patents broadly.
One way of looking at suits and transactions is that the original patent holder capitalized on the potential value of enforcing the patents by transferring those enforcement rights to a buyer willing to take on the enforcement risks. There are plenty of risks involved in enforcing patents (e.g., the cost of attorneys fees or the possibility that an adverse construction of the patent rights will destroy their enforcement value). Whether the original patent holder or a third-party takes on those risks changes who takes on those risks, but doesn't change the scope of the patents themselves.
-
The patents at issue
The article didn't give details regarding what patents are at issue. I went to PACER and searched for patent cases involving Rembrandt filed since January 1, 2007. Most of the cases were filed by Rembrandt Technologies, although one of them was filed by Motorola seeking declaratory judgment that it was not infringing on any valid claims owned by Rembrandt Technologies.
The complaints were not all the same, but here is the list of patents cited in the complaints:
An important question is whether it really matters whether Rembrandt Technologies hired the original inventors or not, or whether Rembrandt Technologies practices the inventions or not. Rembrandt Technologies purchased the patents and is trying to license, not practice the inventions, thus it is considered to be a patent troll. But, would it have been better had the original patent holder had been the one to file these suits?
The rights involved would not be any different, just the entity able to enforce those rights. If the original patent holder was a competitor of the defendants, then there would be more incentive to file these suits to stop competitors from practicing the invention altogether, rather than trying to obtain licensing fees. At least with a third-party patent holder, there is an incentive for the patent holder to license the patents broadly.
One way of looking at suits and transactions is that the original patent holder capitalized on the potential value of enforcing the patents by transferring those enforcement rights to a buyer willing to take on the enforcement risks. There are plenty of risks involved in enforcing patents (e.g., the cost of attorneys fees or the possibility that an adverse construction of the patent rights will destroy their enforcement value). Whether the original patent holder or a third-party takes on those risks changes who takes on those risks, but doesn't change the scope of the patents themselves.
-
The patents at issue
The article didn't give details regarding what patents are at issue. I went to PACER and searched for patent cases involving Rembrandt filed since January 1, 2007. Most of the cases were filed by Rembrandt Technologies, although one of them was filed by Motorola seeking declaratory judgment that it was not infringing on any valid claims owned by Rembrandt Technologies.
The complaints were not all the same, but here is the list of patents cited in the complaints:
An important question is whether it really matters whether Rembrandt Technologies hired the original inventors or not, or whether Rembrandt Technologies practices the inventions or not. Rembrandt Technologies purchased the patents and is trying to license, not practice the inventions, thus it is considered to be a patent troll. But, would it have been better had the original patent holder had been the one to file these suits?
The rights involved would not be any different, just the entity able to enforce those rights. If the original patent holder was a competitor of the defendants, then there would be more incentive to file these suits to stop competitors from practicing the invention altogether, rather than trying to obtain licensing fees. At least with a third-party patent holder, there is an incentive for the patent holder to license the patents broadly.
One way of looking at suits and transactions is that the original patent holder capitalized on the potential value of enforcing the patents by transferring those enforcement rights to a buyer willing to take on the enforcement risks. There are plenty of risks involved in enforcing patents (e.g., the cost of attorneys fees or the possibility that an adverse construction of the patent rights will destroy their enforcement value). Whether the original patent holder or a third-party takes on those risks changes who takes on those risks, but doesn't change the scope of the patents themselves.
-
The patents at issue
The article didn't give details regarding what patents are at issue. I went to PACER and searched for patent cases involving Rembrandt filed since January 1, 2007. Most of the cases were filed by Rembrandt Technologies, although one of them was filed by Motorola seeking declaratory judgment that it was not infringing on any valid claims owned by Rembrandt Technologies.
The complaints were not all the same, but here is the list of patents cited in the complaints:
An important question is whether it really matters whether Rembrandt Technologies hired the original inventors or not, or whether Rembrandt Technologies practices the inventions or not. Rembrandt Technologies purchased the patents and is trying to license, not practice the inventions, thus it is considered to be a patent troll. But, would it have been better had the original patent holder had been the one to file these suits?
The rights involved would not be any different, just the entity able to enforce those rights. If the original patent holder was a competitor of the defendants, then there would be more incentive to file these suits to stop competitors from practicing the invention altogether, rather than trying to obtain licensing fees. At least with a third-party patent holder, there is an incentive for the patent holder to license the patents broadly.
One way of looking at suits and transactions is that the original patent holder capitalized on the potential value of enforcing the patents by transferring those enforcement rights to a buyer willing to take on the enforcement risks. There are plenty of risks involved in enforcing patents (e.g., the cost of attorneys fees or the possibility that an adverse construction of the patent rights will destroy their enforcement value). Whether the original patent holder or a third-party takes on those risks changes who takes on those risks, but doesn't change the scope of the patents themselves.
-
"epaper" == "Polavision"Just as VCRs were starting to take off, Polaroid launched "Polavision". It was a moviecam that used a one-shot film cartridge that produced rather grainy movies. Polaroid always compared the low-cost moviecam against $2500 VHS moviecams. Main problem... the 10-minute film cartridges were damn expensive. By the time you bought enough 10-minute cartridges to equal a 2-hour VHS cassette, you'd spend more on the cartridges than the cost of the $2500 moviecam... ouch. AND THE VHS CASSETTE COULD BE ERASED AND RE-USED, while the Polavision cartridges were one-shot devices, like 8mm and "Super-8" film. Polavision was intended as a competitor to 8mm and "Super-8". 8mm and Super-8 were anihilated by VHS moviecams, and Polavision also fell victim to VHS moviecams.
Fast-forward several years. "Browsing devices" are the "VHS moviecams" to epaper's version of Polavision. Before anyone starts ranting against web-browsers, let me point out...- the ORIGINAL web, as developed at CERN, was text-only with browsers like lynx
- you can read files on your local drive with Firefox or IE or Lynx
- there are a lot more people already lugging around cellphones/smartphones than will ever buy single-purpose "ebook readers"
- many cellphones/smartphones already have browsers built-in
- buy yet another $200 device that they have to lug around, or
- use the cellphone/smartphone THEY'VE ALREADY PAID FOR AND THEY'RE ALREADY LUGGING AROUND to accomplish the same task
-
Re:Not just lithography
Indeed. Simulating and optimizing for process faults is often accomplished as a form of Monte Carlo testing, where a stochastic sweep is done over various possible process faults to determine the likelihood that transistor parameters like gain or threshold voltage come out as expected. This is often done at the analog design level as a necessary simulation step.
I couldn't find much on the web about this besides a patent from 1994. -
Re:Prior Art
After a little Googling, it seems this would be a good place to start.
It seems to have a patent repository, a prior art voting system, and ways to figure out if your idea if patentable. -
Re:Article author is clue-free
I'm aware of the triple damages rule. It was the last bullet point in my list.
There's a wiki about patents, called, appropriately enough, WikiPatents. I don't know much more about them; I just found them linked from pubpat.org today. They're looking at all US patents, not just those related to software. What's on the site might not be admissible in a court case, but it would certainly give a head start to a lawyer who's trying to get a patent invalidated.
Worthy though such projects are, they're treating the symptoms, not the disease. Why the hell should the public have to do the patent office's job for it? The real solution is to stop bad patents from being issued in the first place.
But really, as this comment points out, since Microsoft have made the allegation, it's up to them to prove it. The free software community doesn't have to disprove it. We don't have to do anything beyond saying (repeatedly), "Tell us which features of which projects infringe which of your patents. Then we will get those patents invalidated, or work around them, or remove the infringing code, in that order. Until you give us the information we have asked for, we will have to assume that either there is no infringement, or you do not want the infringement cured. Both alternatives imply you are acting in bad faith."
-
FOSS can expose "bad patents" using WikiPatents
http://www.wikipatents.com/ is a forum/wiki devoted to clarifying the extent to which patents are legitimate and/or valuable.
-
Re:Why a wiki?
http://www.wikipatents.com/ One part wiki, two parts forum - over 3 million patents! The newly launched beta at WikiPatents provides weighted comments on specific topics relevant to individual patents. Ultimately the beta should address many of the legitimate concerns in this conversation. We welcome your feedback to help us improve the site.
-
Re:Why a wiki?
http://www.wikipatents.com/ - one part wiki, two parts forum, one part poll - over 3 million patents! Just launched, WikiPatents is initially using weighted commentary to permit the best comments to rise to the top. It just started its beta testing, so the solutions to many of the concerns mentioned below are on their way (hopefully).