Slashdot Mirror
Seagate Accuses Cornice of Patent Infringement
dncsky1530 writes "Seagate's recently filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Cornice of Longmont, Colo. Now it is seeking an order from the U.S. International Trade Commission to exclude Cornice disk drives and any systems or products using or containing Cornice disc drives from entry into the United States. Seagate asserts that Cornice is infringing on seven of its U.S. patents that relate to several areas of disk drive technology."
Now it is seeking an order from the U.S. International Trade Commission to exclude Cornice disk drives and any systems or products using or containing Cornice disc drives from entry into the United States.
If Seagate is truly out to protect their revenue (which is the intention of patents), they should have no problem letting Cornice continue to sell their wares... If Cornice is really infringing on the patents, they will eventually have to pay licensing fees to Seagate, so the more they sell the more Seagate will benefit. And if there is no infringement, then there is no point in stopping their sales.
This is where the US patent system is fucked up. Any patent-holder should be forced to allow others to use the technology by paying a reasonable licensing fee. Entities should never be able to use patents as a way of stopping competitors from making sales. Yet the latter has become the US way of doing business. Sad.
-hadohk
But in this case, this is being done to protect a US-based company from being driven out of the business by a competitor that's making the same product without having to pay any of the R&D costs behind it.
Patents exist so whomever bears the R&D cost has some decent chance of profiting before everybody else rushes in and drives down the price. If you allow the patent system to fall, R&D dies with it.
If your competitor didn't innovate but instead stole your innovation while you still have patent protection, you have to litigate. Otherwise, your competitor makes profits that rightfully belong to you.
I'd like to see more information on the technology thats being infringed upon. If Cornice is indeed taking patented technology, ripping it off and using it for their own benefit, then they should be stopped and have to pay for it.
Unlike software patents, which should be treated differently, hardware patents have quite a bit much more riding on the line for the company that chooses to undertake the endeavor of actually designing and manufacturing a piece of hardware.
Only a terrorist would question the government.
-- John Ashcroft
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
There is no "right" to profits. There is, however, a right to protect your research. If you invent something and patent it, you have the right to demand licensing fees from anybody else who uses that thing -- even if they didn't reverse engineer your product to figure it out. This "first come, first served" patent system is designed to encourage research, as opposed to sitting around waiting for an idea to be invented for you.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
My understanding is Cornice is not infringing. What is going on is that these companies want Cornice to deal with them and give them access to Cornice's Patents (Think SCO vs. IBM. Think MS busy accumulating total BS patents.) These patents make it possible to build inexpensive, low-energy, small disk drives. This post was totally reactionary and does not deserve a 1 let alone a 5.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Personally, I do not believe that. Companies would still inovate. They have to otherwise they would die. What would probably not happen is that inovations that require a lot of fundemental research (read expense) would not happen. Nor would companies be in a hurry to share information.
Patents were developed to allow an individual time to develop an idea. Now adays, these have been extended to the point that they are the business. I believe that we should go back to what the framers wanted; A means to allow an individual to develop.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
" If they are violating Segates patents, then they SHOULD be sued..
Abuse of patent the system is wrong, but if you have received patent approval, you have the right ( obligation as far as im concerned ) to protect your patent."
Obtaining a patent for something that was invented before or is obvious to those skilled in the field, and choosing to sue for infringement of that patent, is itself an abuse of the patent system (regardless of the fact that the system allows such abuse by granting low-quality patents).
They should be sued only if they are violating the patents AND the patents are for legitimate non-obvious inventions. Occurrences of the latter are very uncommon these days.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Ok, I will take the bait. You can't operate a business without money, so if people can just come along and steal your ideas, you're screwed. Some people innovate for genuine interest because they are already independently wealthy and can afford to not make money, the same is not true for corporations, who have shareholders to report to. If you want communism in America, then I guess you don't like eating, or having property, or not being shot/disappeared.
I hate sigs.
It is pretty easy to sell something cheaper when you didn't develop it.
I hate sigs.
The problem is not patents per se, but the idiocy with which they are granted. The PTO no longer has the intellectual horsepower (let alone the time) to even understand what it is they are patenting. There is a similar problem with the justices that ajudicate these cases. And the juries.
A jury of my "peers?" Buddy, that's the last thing I ever want. I've seen who the courts think are someone's peers.
Technology becomes ever more complex and subtle, but the population doesn't know the difference between 'well' and 'good', and worries only about being accepted by the others in their bit of the herd.
If it was open season on everything, we would have nothing, we would still be in mud huts using two cups and a string to communicate. If there is no incentive for profit, most companies won't bother to make something.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that patents are necessary to innovation, and there never has been. Check the literature, and you will find that inventors usually begin as people interested in solving a particular problem, not capitalists interested in filling their pockets. They come later, and the innovate very little. There's no money in it.
Patents are a product of the same economic thinking that produced the doctrine of mercantilism. Mercantilism was the loose economic theory that dominated 17th and 18th century Europe, founded on the idea that the wealth of nations. It promoted high tariffs on foreign goods, promotion of local markets, and other doctrines that would now be called "protectionist".
Adam Smith, of course, poked holes in the thinking behind mercantilism. Those who believe patents are necessary to progress are like those who believe protectionism is necessary to prosperity. It isn't sound thinking. Unfortunately, vested interests with a lot of money and power support patents like they once did the state-supported industries of the mercantilist era.
Like the mercantlists of an earlier era, those who support extensive patent protections encourage rent-seeking behavior, not risk-taking behavior, the consolidation of wealth, not the creating of wealth.
So thank you very much, but given that Seagate and Western Digital may be playing the patent card to put down a young and aggressive competitor with a better product, I see no reason to assume that Cornice is the bad guy here. Yes, obviously, something is up. WD and Seagate are afraid of Cornice. On the other hand, a lawsuit is evidence of nothing but that somebody wanted to sue somebody else, whether they have a case or not/P
Googling gave nothing: Do you have a source for that quote?
Although I truely despise Ashcroft, I cannot believe he is so monumentally stupid to say something like that.
Or did you intend to paraphrase?