dbrutus writes "Amazon lost its bid to continue a preliminary injunction against BarnesandNoble.com. You can find a press release to give you all the details."
Lawyer: general contract principles say yes
by
hawk
·
· Score: 3
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
I've never looked at it in the intellectual property realm, but a general principle of contract law is that "mutual mistake" makes a contract voidable.
Presumably, both parties to a license agreement believed the underlying IP to be valid, so a discovery taht it woas not would be a mutual mistake. However, it is also possbile that the contract terms provide otherwise, anc ould even recite that there is a disagreement between the parties as to valididty, and that the agreement is in settlement. In that case, the agreement would continue and be enforceable.
This seems to be the essence: "...critics of business method patents can read this decision as signaling that the CAFC will require patent applicants to be very specific in the terminology which is used to define their iventions..."
Keep in mind that it isn't yet overturned. Unly the temporary injunction was overturned.
Also, this court decision could help to reduce
the problem, since it clarifies what patents should be considered valid.
Hopefully there's a chance that the USPTO will actually react to that. And in any case it will be powerful help for companies trying to overturn overbroad or just plain silly patents.
I certainly agree with you that the court decision
is a great step forward... But it's only a start.
One billion mosquitoes stalking in the jungle. One gets swatted. Now there are one billion and fifty mosquitoes stalking in the jungle.
Quite frankly, this is an exercise in futility as long as the basic machinery which keeps on rubber stamping genuine idiocies does not get reformed one way or another.
-- Existence usually comes as a surprise (Idem)
A refreshing breth of rationality - I hope
by
Badgerman
·
· Score: 4
Well this isn't a total victory, IMHO, but is close to one. At least the legal and governmental entities involved are starting to actually think about the big picture.
Personally, I'm hoping that this causes a review of other ridiculous patents, and raises public awareness of patent abuse. Certainly the one-click patent is so breathtakingly stupid that if the general public hears about it, it'll be extremely humiliating for Amazon (and those who liscenced the idea).
To quote one of my co-workers: no one should be able to patent something that could be designed by a marketing department.
-- "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Re:Refunds for Apple and the other
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 4
> Refunds for Apple and the other firms who licensed the one click?
Yeah, Amazon is setting up a one-click refund site.
--
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Refunds for Apple and the other
by
The+Mutant
·
· Score: 4
firms who licensed the one click?
And while we're at it, how many other firms all together paid Amazon for a license?
Does anyone out there know the terms? It is an annual license fee or lifetime? And how much?
(Note to editors, if there is a date in a press release from a submission, and if that date is more than a few days old, it's a good chance the story's been posted already, particularly in this case. But of course, this assumes that editors read the articles that are submitted).
--
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
It's a sad state of affairs when we're surprised that a court comes down on the side of of common sense. That said, this is a nice preliminary finding, and we can but hope that the rest of the case proceeds in a similarly reasonable manner (whatever the result).
In particular, I like the part about patents being distinguished by technique and not application, so you don't necessarily get a new patent just for writing down some existing art and pencilling "...but on a web page" on the end.
Is the US legal system in danger of finally getting a clue, do we think?;)
-- If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I've never looked at it in the intellectual property realm, but a general principle of contract law is that "mutual mistake" makes a contract voidable.
Presumably, both parties to a license agreement believed the underlying IP to be valid, so a discovery taht it woas not would be a mutual mistake. However, it is also possbile that the contract terms provide otherwise, anc ould even recite that there is a disagreement between the parties as to valididty, and that the agreement is in settlement. In that case, the agreement would continue and be enforceable.
hawk, esq.
This seems to be the essence: "...critics of business method patents can read this decision as signaling that the CAFC will require patent applicants to be very specific in the terminology which is used to define their iventions..."
One billion mosquitoes stalking in the jungle. One gets swatted. Now there are one billion and fifty mosquitoes stalking in the jungle.
Quite frankly, this is an exercise in futility as long as the basic machinery which keeps on rubber stamping genuine idiocies does not get reformed one way or another.
Existence usually comes as a surprise (Idem)
Well this isn't a total victory, IMHO, but is close to one. At least the legal and governmental entities involved are starting to actually think about the big picture.
Personally, I'm hoping that this causes a review of other ridiculous patents, and raises public awareness of patent abuse. Certainly the one-click patent is so breathtakingly stupid that if the general public hears about it, it'll be extremely humiliating for Amazon (and those who liscenced the idea).
To quote one of my co-workers: no one should be able to patent something that could be designed by a marketing department.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
> Refunds for Apple and the other firms who licensed the one click?
Yeah, Amazon is setting up a one-click refund site.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And while we're at it, how many other firms all together paid Amazon for a license?
Does anyone out there know the terms? It is an annual license fee or lifetime? And how much?
A message from our sponsor
Hehehe
6 5ca7-043108e0.. read the last line..
http://www.segfault.org/story.phtml?mode=2&id=3aa
Onion
http://twitter.com/onion2k
(Note to editors, if there is a date in a press release from a submission, and if that date is more than a few days old, it's a good chance the story's been posted already, particularly in this case. But of course, this assumes that editors read the articles that are submitted).
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
It's a sad state of affairs when we're surprised that a court comes down on the side of of common sense. That said, this is a nice preliminary finding, and we can but hope that the rest of the case proceeds in a similarly reasonable manner (whatever the result).
In particular, I like the part about patents being distinguished by technique and not application, so you don't necessarily get a new patent just for writing down some existing art and pencilling "...but on a web page" on the end.
Is the US legal system in danger of finally getting a clue, do we think? ;)
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.