Slashdot Mirror
Liquid Audio Sues In Pitiful Attempt to Appear Relevant
Emily writes: "Another case
of patent abuse similar to the PanIP nonsense previously reported in Slashdot. This time, it's Liquid
Audio suing geotargeting company Infosplit
over patent infringement. I read their patent,
it's hilarious! Liquid Audio basically received a patent for saying that a domain ending by "co.uk" is in the UK. More seriously, these lawsuits
represent a serious threat to innovation in this country."
This is an on-going thread in Slashdot which appears to be uncovering important info. Any chance we could arrange a Slashdot interview with either the Head of the Patent Office (or their main P.R. guy) or with the Senator heading up the Patent Office Committee (whatever that is)?
I agree this is a stupid patent, but I don't think it is quite as simple as "co.uk means the computer's in the UK". There's an extra portion to the patent which goes one step further, which is determining whether or not the digital content can be transmitted to the computer in it's current geo-political location. In essence, it sounds like a method to allow the implementation of national data filtering. For example, if it's illegal to view adult materials in a country, this patent covers any method which is used to determine that the client computer is in that nation, and then goes on to prevent the data from getting there.
Granted, that's my interpretation and I'm not a patent lawyer. On the flip side, I don't see how this patent could ever be used by someone, because I think it could be circumvented too easily. If you go solely on hostname, you could probably fake that out. If you're depending on the computer to verify this information via hardware or software, someone could get around this (like region-free DVD players).
I am looking at the patent, and it looks like the patent really and honestly is exactly as the slashdot submitter represents it, and contains nothing more than obvious ramifications of open, globally developed network infrastructure..
:)
But good Lord! 23 pages for this patent? How did they do that? Just look at that language, they must have been purposefully trying to write something so incredibly verbose they knew the patent office wouldn't bother reading all the way through.
So, just for fun, because i like Perl golf, here's a little Civil Disobedience Challenge for the slashdot populace: Who can create the smallest implementation of this patent possible? I'll bet you could fit the entire thing in half a page to a page of perl without even trying.
Post your entries as replies to this comment. Posters of the winning entries get absolutely nothing, except maybe a cease and disist order if you attach your actual account to the comment. C'mon, it'll be fun
"The next great world power is going to be China."
Through brute force only. China ignores IP laws for it's own convienence, not to foster innovation and opportunity.
China lacks political freedom that is necessary to foster invention. There is a reason why communist countries have to put up walls to keep their people in, after all...
Ultimately, though, the Chinese system will fail just like the soviet one did, once the people become advanced enough to crave freedom. It's just taking longer because China has MILLENIA of cultural acceptance of autocracy to overcome.
Corporatism != Free Market
Like many of you, I'm a (lifetime) student, a CS Major and a hobbyist. I love computer science, physics and math (in that order). I write software for grocery money (independent of some corporate entity..), do network administration and high-level training (i.e. teaching an IT department how to use samba.. etc). I'm also into hobby electronics, amateur robotocs, etc. As an individual inventor/hobbyist it is hard to see the US patent system as a means of anything but reinforcing corporate interest. There are only four possibilities, really:
1. Hobbyist has patent, Company has patent. This one plays out in court. Likely, who has the most money wins. At the very most for the hobbyist, I'll bet you the ruling says the hobbist and the company developed the same thing independently.
2. Hobbyist has patent, company doesn't but is granted patent. Again, this one will probably play out in court. The hobbyist is more favored, but legal representation matters.
3. Hobbyist has no patent, Company has broad umbrella patent. Again, it plays out in court. What are the chances the court would decide that the hobbyist independently invented?
4. No one has patents. This one is tough, though usually the company in question applies for a patent then initiates legal action with the hope that by the time it comes to trial, they will have been issued a patent. (findlaw)
See a recurring theme? As a hobbyist, I worry about being brought into court, for no good reason, based on some good idea I have. I can't afford that. Its a drain on the soul as well as the coffer. I also get the feeling that I have to prove I'm innocent of alleged patent violations. It tends to make me bitter, and no longer a jubilant inventor. Whats worse, I'm told that if I invent something independently and realease it to the community I can be held accountable for abitrary amounts that represent "losses" in revenue of the patent holder if they make a strong enough case. Review the Ogg vs. Mp3 initial corporate statements that were tantamount to "Yeah, they may have worked independently, but this mathmusic thing is so complex, they must have ripped us off. No one would think of that!" Fortunately, I'm still a poor student and have nothing anyone could take.
Baubles to you and I, in the hobbyist electronics/software algorithm sense, are incomprehensible to the court, and just about any argument can be made as to what they are, how complex they are, and how reasonable it would be to argue that a particular patent is a logical conclusion of other thoughts or a completely original thought.
You people can't expect the patent examiners to have degrees in micro biology, genetic engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, etc...
The actual fact of the matter is that patent examiners usually do have a technical background complete with the degrees you mention.
The reason we are seeing too many bad patents is because the US patent system has some real flaws, including not-strict-enough criterea for unobviousness and utility. Other fixes that would help include publication of applications and allowance for commentary by other parties as part of the application process.
I was going to say twenty, but then I reconsidered. Seems to me that change is accelerating, and we have seen some pretty startling changes over the past decade or so: fall of the USSR, creation of the EU, rise of India as a software powerforce, etc.
Now that China is getting trading partner status, and the West is completely ignoring its endless human rights violations, I think ten years isn't outragerously optimistic. Twenty-five years is a full generation's time: I think that timeline is a little too conservative.
Either way, though, life is going to change radically for us Westerners. I sure hope we don't find out what it's like to live in the Third World...
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Excuse me for laughing derisively. The more to the patent is using the result of the geographic locality check to decide whether or not certain content should be sent? Perhaps you're not a programmer, but that boils down to a hash table lookup and an if statement. That's something your average second-year computer science undergrad should be able to come up with. Patents are awarded for innovations "not obvious to someone skilled in the art". The "more" that you are suggesting is patent-worthy is obvious to someone JUST BEGINNING TO LEARN THE ART.
In general, what you are saying is that given a method to determine some critical piece of information X, you should be able to patent using X to make a simple yes-or-no decision. That's ridiculous. Humans have been doing that for tens of thousands of years. "I am hungry. There is a fruit-bearing plant in front of me. Is the fruit poisonous or harmful to me in any way? If no, then eat it; if yes, then don't. Oh wait, I can't make a decision based on derived information because that's a patented process." With as little faith as I have in the USPTO, I think even they would reject that one.
-----Chaz