No PodBuddy for iPod lovers

dniq writes "It appears that DLO (Digital Lifestyle Outfitters) are using their patent #6,591,085 to keep a PodBuddy, designed by DVForge, a product, competing with DLO's TransPod, off the market. Another example where patents are interfering with innovation and in the end - the end users are suffering the consequences, because far more superior product can't see the light due to dirty tricks of the patent owners :("

Comments

"One-click"?

[darthpenguin]

Wondering what the patent was all about, I did a search. Here is the Abstract:

An FM transmitter and power supply/charging assembly electrically coupleable with an MP3 player. The assembly includes a modular docking unit having a main body portion with a docking cavity therein, wherein the main body portion contains the FM transmitter and power/charging circuitry, with coupling means in the docking cavity for connecting the MP3 player with the FM transmitter and power/charging circuitry, to accommodate FM transmission by the FM transmitter of audio content when played by the MP3 player in the docking cavity of the modular docking unit, and adapted for transmitting electrical power through the modular docking unit and the power/charging circuitry therein, for charging of a battery of the MP3 player and/or powering of the MP3 player.

How about some patent reform? I thought these things need to be non-obvious...

The full patent text is here: Patent #6,591,085

.

Re:"One-click"?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

How about some patent reform? I thought these things need to be non-obvious...

The patent system works. Yes, even for software patent. What the world needs however is patent reviewers that aren't orang-utang, actually verify the claims and the prior arts, and are given enough time to get familiarized with whatever the patent application is dealing with, and accept or reject said application fairly.

With good reviewers, the one-click patent and the XOR patent would never have happened. With monkeys, they do, as well as silly obvious banalities like an FM transmitter.

Perhaps adding a "patent meta-moderation" system like that of Slashdot, where professionals of the industry can deem a granted patent fair or unfair, and post additional comments, and allow a special USPTO committee to retroactively reject patents, would do the trick. An applicant would then apply for a patent, and know that for maybe 6 months or a year, the patent can be revoked.

Re:"One-click"?

[h4rm0ny]

A further requirement for the patent system to work is that it should be open to challenge without enormous financial resources.

According to the designer's site, they believe that their product is not infringing on the patent, but can't afford the court case that would follow. Clearly this is a problem with the justice system.

That said, the designer states that he offered to sell the design to the patent holders so that his work would at least see the light of day. If his product is not infringing, then he would be better off selling it to someone who could afford the court case. Just for the principle.

Re:"One-click"?

[standards]

From the patent:

the main body portion contains the FM transmitter and power/charging circuitry

Here's a great way to avoid that patent: relocate the "FM transmitter" and/or the "power/charging circuitry" away from the "main body" of the device.

This "innovative" patent is therefore easily avoided. Fire up the machinery and start shipping!

Re:"One-click"?

[ksaville00]

I agree totally, this is stopping innovation. There needs to be some patent changes....Hopefully someone can get the wheel turning...

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

How would he be "better off" having sold his idea on principle?

Re:"One-click"?

[syukton]

I like the idea of patent meta-moderation.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the designer's site, they believe that their product is not infringing on the patent, but can't afford the court case that would follow. Clearly this is a problem with the justice system


So they believe they can and should have a shot. I don't have a problem with that. Suppose PodBuddy got a free shot as a challenger because they don't have deep pockets. What should happen should DLO win? You're telling them they have to play King of the Mountain and fend off all challengers. Haven't you learned anything about those who hold patents and have to fend off the big boys? (TV?)

And do you think the only thing which distinguishes one patent from a prospective product is the posted text? I think you'll find that if you've ever spent time in court with patent cases, there's a little more to it.

Re:"One-click"?

[mrchaotica]

Yes, even for software patent.

No, NOT even for software patents, because software is already protected by copyright! You don't think authors get to patent their stories, do you?!

Re:"One-click"?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

No, NOT even for software patents, because software is already protected by copyright!

Why not? first off, copyright regulates the right to copy (hence the name), so it's another issue altogether. But imagine this: suppose I spend a lot of time and money developing some computing method that drastically reduce, say, the number of transistors in a CPU and its power consumption: why wouldn't I be able to patent my software method and make money out of it, if only to recoup my initial investment?

I think you're making a judgement on the experience of current software patents (one-click, XOR, http...) which are beyond ridiculous. But complex, innovative, revolutionary methods can arguably be patentable to foster research and allow inventors to live off their inventions, just like mechanical or electronic discoveries.

The whole issue here is being able to reject (or contest) stupid patents, and grant patents only to fundamental and important discoveries, which the USPTO isn't doing.

You don't think authors get to patent their stories, do you?!

A piece of software isn't a story. It's a computational method. More like a recipe.

Re:"One-click"?

[zappepcs]

I like Rosco's application of /. like meta-moderation to an area where technology and litigation make the USPTO's job extremely huge.
I do think that it should go a step further. As well as using meta-moderation to scope a larger base of information as to prior art and 'non-abviousness' it would also improve patent research (IMO).

Going a step further would be to use meta-moderation to support research and apply community standards on the patent system. Perhaps use of the meta-moderation system would require agreement to mediation rather than litigation in the event of confusion or patent infringement.

I suppose you could call them "meta patents" or "community patents" but whatever they are called, this would be the first step toward obtaining a standard patent which grants you the rights that patents do now. This preliminary stage would weed out all the little crap that ends up in courts.

Small businesses and individuals would then be allowed to work with their meta patents and any would be litigation is then relegated to mediation until there is a proper patent issued for the device/method/application etc.

Both meta moderation and meta mediation put much of the litigation issues in the hands of the community concerned with such patents rather than escalating them to high courts. This would decrease the risk of litigation and thus the risk of costs for small businesses and individuals.

Sure, I know there are many problems that this method would bring up like how does the system ensure that participants are citizens of the country issuing the meta patent, who pays for the system, what laws must be enacted to allow the USPTO to moderate such a system etc... Still, I think the idea of using community standards to issue patents before there is litigation or chance of it is a sound idea, and well worth being looked into.

Just my tuppence worth....

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another issue with patents is that not only are they expensive to attack, they are expensive to defend. There are many inventors who have to sell their patents to companies to make any money off their ideas (to somebody who has enough money to defend the patent, of course). Otherwise, big corperations would simply ignore the patent, since the inventor doesn't have enough money to pour into court battles anyways.

There's actually a company that exists SOLEY to buy and own patents. It consists mainly of lawyers, and, admittedly, a few technicians who tell the lawyers which patents to buy.

Though I imagine some company backed inventor could get around some of this, it seems to me nearly impossible that an independent inventor could make nearly as much money off of his cleverness then he should be able to.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about some patent reform? I thought these things need to be non-obvious...

Seems to me it's not so much that it's obvious as that it's just a combination of several other inventions.

FM Transmitter for portable music player. Check.

Interacts with iPod through dock connector. Check.

Charges from cigarette lighter. Check.

The only thing I can't think of a prior product for is the cavity that holds the iPod...though many cases (some hard cases) might qualify for that. All they did was merge these individual products into one (pretty crappy-looking) product. Good for them.

Re:"One-click"?

[mrchaotica]

Fine, then software shouldn't be copyrightable! The bottom line is that it's ridiculous to give software TWICE the protections, when no other industry gets the same privilage. So either software gets copyrights OR pathents, NOT both, or the woman who writes the Harry Potter books ought to be able to patent stories about magical school kids. That's the only fair thing to do, you know.

Re:"One-click"?

[zurab]

Perhaps adding a "patent meta-moderation" system like that of Slashdot, where professionals of the industry can deem a granted patent fair or unfair, and post additional comments, and allow a special USPTO committee to retroactively reject patents, would do the trick. An applicant would then apply for a patent, and know that for maybe 6 months or a year, the patent can be revoked.

You wouldn't call it a patent then. Maybe a probation period that is a step behind a valid patent until it is validated (i.e. satisfied the probation terms) and no prior art presented during that time. If prior art, obviousness, or other challenges are presented during the probation period, however, the patent officer in charge should be obligated to verify their validity and either decline the patent application on that basis, or comment on why the prior art doesn't apply to the patent application in question.

Currently, AFAIK, too many patents are granted where the only check for prior art is done only within the patent database itself. This is a huge problem in the tech sector where advances happen so quickly; and creates a high barrier for small companies with small financial backing for the benefit of the big, rich, slow and powerful.

Re:"One-click"?

[Orinthe]

the woman who writes the Harry Potter books ought to be able to patent stories about magical school kids

I believe that the Island of Japan already holds this patent.

Re:"One-click"?

[shutdown -p now]

suppose I spend a lot of time and money developing some computing method that drastically reduce, say, the number of transistors in a CPU and its power consumption: why wouldn't I be able to patent my software method and make money out of it, if only to recoup my initial investment?

Because if I develop the said method independently without knowning of your patent, I would still be violating it. Which clearly shows how the patent system is obviously broken by design. If you were the first to come up with this thing, it definitely doesn't mean that you should be able to stop others from inventing the same by themselves.

Re:"One-click"?

[Seraphim1982]

Copyright is piss-poor protection for a program. It is generally trivial to mange code that it functions the exact same way but doesn't actually resemble the origional code in any way, the downside is that this will generally destroy readability. If you try to do this in a book you'll end up with a pile of garbage that no one will want to read, but a computer doesn't care if sourecode looks like garbage and even it if is a PITA to maintain it you save a lot of time by not having to come up with the actual solution yourself.

Re:"One-click"?

[SpeedyRich]

The Patent System uses Hooman Be'ens. Hooman Be'ens allowed this patent through.

Ergo, the patent system doesn't work.

Idiot.

Re:"One-click"?

[NanoGator]

"I like the idea of patent meta-moderation."

I like the theory of it, but I still see some stupid-ass moderations around here.

Re:"One-click"?

[AcidTag]

It's pretty simple to get around that patent. The verbage talks about an MP3 Player. Well, don't play MP3's over it, do m4a or wma. Problem solved. Does Apple call the iPod an MP3 Player exclusively, no. There other option is to not meet one of the requirements of the patent for violation.

>> 8. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the FM transmitter produces an output frequency audio signal in a range of from about 85 to about 95 Megaherz.

Aside from the horrible spelling job on the patent, simply broadcast from 100mhz to 108mhz. The patent is precise in it's usage around the iPod, it's FM Broadcast portion is very vauge.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I'd like it too!
Imagine all patents moderated as
-1, Troll

Re:"One-click"?

[mrchaotica]

Fine, then software shouldn't be copyrightable.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet would be making people who file patents liable for filing non-general, unique, and specific patents. This combined with routine review and what you have suggested will help modernize the patent system.

But really, the only way to keep companies in line is with liability. Otherwise, companies will keep flooding the patent system with stupid common sense patents. We don't want to stifle innovation - at the same time, we want to make sure that innovation takes place.

Re:"One-click"?

[NickFortune]

first off, copyright regulates the right to copy (hence the name), so it's another issue altogether.

Question: what do you suppose to be the purpose of software patents? You say in an earlier post that software patents work well. May I ask to what purpose?

The conventional answer would be that patents serve to reward an inventor for his hard work. By granting a limited monopoly on the application of the inventors' work, he or she is guaranteed a chance to profit from his work. Oddly enough, copyright also affords a limited monopoly as a reward for hard work, this time over the the expression of an idea or concept.

Both of these mechanism exist to reward creators by granting them a degree of control over their creation.

So in what manner do you see these as being separate issues? Both mechanism serve the same purpose, copyright already applies to software and has worked well enough to make a certain Mr. Gates rich beyond description. So since copyright does the job, and since it seems to work, it would say that the issue of copyright might just have some relevance after all.

Feel free to correct my logic if you find it lacking.

suppose I spend a lot of time and money developing some computing method that drastically reduce, say, the number of transistors in a CPU and its power consumption: why wouldn't I be able to patent my software method

Well, for a start, you just described a hardware innovation. Fewer transistors in a CPU == hardware, QED. No one is claiming that hardware should not be patentable.

But complex, innovative, revolutionary methods can arguably be patentable to foster research and allow inventors to live off their inventions

Except that all software innovation is an incremental approach. Programs build on onther programs - this is well known and has been understood for decades. Granting patents on software will slow innovation, not speed it. It will slow it because no one will work to inprove your idea. Add enough software patents and no one will do any work, since anyone can get sued for any one of a number of patents, possibly undeclared. Don't take my word for it, the afore mentioned Mr. Gates said so in writing, years ago.

Of course, these days Mr. Gate's company has enough patents that they can cross licence them with IBM and the half dozen or so companies with a big enough portfolio to play. Everyone else better get a job with the big software companies though. And forget about open source coding. You may won the copyright, but they'll never let you use the code.

A piece of software isn't a story. It's a computational method. More like a recipe.

Which is significant, why, precisely?

Can a recipe be patented? "Method and aparatus for making a really tasty lamb stew," perhaps? What is the fundamental property of a recipe, or a computational method for that matter, that means it should be entitled to a twofold grant of monopoly? Especially since the mechanism that requires the least work, the patent, is the one with the strongest protection.

So:

1. What do you suppose patents are for?
2. What do think patents are for, if you think they work so well? What is their purpose?
3. What perculiar property do you feel pertains to computational methods that distinguish them from any other creative work?
4. What is it about software that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent?

I'd really like to know how you answer these questions. You express your opinions with impressive force, but until you back them up with something of substance, opinions are all you have.

Re:"One-click"?

[MrMista_B]

I also like the idea of patent meta-moderation.

Can I have some karma too? :-)

Re:"One-click"?

[SgtSnorkel]

Good reviewers would be a nice step. How about reducing the load on the system?

We should include a way to actually punish people who abuse the system by submitting these totally obvious patents. They're supposed to be checking this stuff before they submit anyway.

At the least, there should be an increasing fine for wasting time and resources every time you submit a bogus application. (After five or so, your apps would just be ignored, but the fine would still apply.)

Re:"One-click"?

[tzanger]

So either software gets copyrights OR pathents, NOT both, or the woman who writes the Harry Potter books ought to be able to patent stories about magical school kids. That's the only fair thing to do, you know.

I've argued about this earlier on this site and didn't seem to get many responses after the second round of rebuttals. Quite simply though, novels or stories are not instructions on creating a work; you simply cannot compare a story to an algorithm for something such as JPEG compression.

Abolishing software copyright doesn't work either. Patents protect the patent holder against competition so they may recoup their development costs. Copyright protects against ... well copying of a work, whether that work be innovative or novel or it just be a specific but obvious way to doing something. They're different issues.

Please don't let the idiocy of the obvious patents make you blind to the necessity of patents, whether they be software, mechanical or biological.

Re:"One-click"?

[noidentity]

...coupleable with an MP3 player...MP3 player...MP3 player

The solution is obvious: make one for an ogg or AAC player. Problem solved.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the number of patent-related stories that appear on Slashdot, the community should not, yet again, need to be beaten with a clue-by-four. But of course it does...

A further requirement for the patent system to work is that it should be open to challenge without enormous financial resources.

Guess what -- IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MET.

Look at this link

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2005 mar15.htm

Read the section entitled "Post Issuance Fees"

Ex parte reexamination $2520
Inter partes reexamination $8800.

Now look at this link

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title35/partiii_c hapter30_.html

Read each and every subsection. The first five are the most important with respect to this problem.

If your art is so killer, and you can read simple instructions, it will cost you a grand total of $2520, photocopying, and postage to have the government do the hard lifting for you.

If you don't trust the government, and you can write a simple legal argument (in all likelihood you can't, because if you couldn't do the research to find this then you have little hope of doing research to find the standards for various kinds of patent invalidity), it will cost you a grand total of $8800, photocopying, postage, and the opportunity cost of the time that you're not spending on Slashdot whining about the evil patent system ($0) to be able to read and rebut any argument that the evil patent holder presents to overcome your not-killer-but-close prior art.

If you run an actual business and have better things to do, then you hire an attorney at the rate of $150-200/hr to either warn you off because your prior art is not going to achieve what you think it will achieve, or to present a professional argument backed by research and worthwhile citations to precedent.

If you cannot afford $3k-$10k, or more, then frankly you're not doing a business that is in any danger of being sued for patent infringement. Pre-emptive anti-lawyer, anti-patent whine response: Forming a business costs money, buying or renting a workplace costs money, buying equipment costs money, hiring staff costs money, paying workers comp and unemployment insurance costs money, and, in the rare case where a patent may be a problem, patent clearance or other efforts are going to actually cost money too. Grow up and deal with it.

Re:"One-click"?

[morganew]

There is a system in place that allows for low-cost presentation of prior art BEFORE a patent is granted. It's generally referred to as a Rule 99 submission, and it allows for any third party to submit prior art that they believe shows the applied for patent should not be granted based on an existing idea.

Right now, the window to file a submission under Rule 99 is two months long. This window opens at 18 months after a patent application is filed.

The two month window iis awfully short however, and there is some question as to the value of the submissions to the examiner in such a narrow timeframe.

To improve this, we are asking that the window be lengthened to 6 months minimum, and the law be changed to allow 3rd parties to submit detailed explanations of how the art is relevant to the patent application.

The change is currently supported by the Chairman of the Subcommitee on the Courts and IP, and is part of a new bill, HR 2795, that is designed to reform the patent system.

Certain parts of HR 2795 are probably going to change, but the extention of Rule 99, and the creation of a cheaper post-grant opposition system will probably make it into final legislation.

Re:"One-click"?

[markwalling]

100% under rated

Re:"One-click"?

[bugninja]

I like the simple idea of a thread attached to each newly submitted patent at the pto website so people can simply post a little "Here's the prior art ..." - if even to direct the the pto when beginning their search.

My personal problem with patents is that it prevents free trade and stops competition, which I thought was a constitutional right we have in the U.S.

To say that anyone owns an idea is insane. If I create something out of my own mind, never having heard of, or seen, the competition or the patent itself, I am just as entitled to the patent as the original submitter.

But the world doesn't care nor does it work that way. Wow. I'm just bitchy today.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

right the problem is the subjective interpretation of what is truely novel and inventive. Because our society is technically and scientifically illiterate they don't know what is a re-invention or a truely new idea.

Re:"One-click"?

[Hal_Porter]

I used to be very anti software patent, but then I started to think of situations where they are essential.

E.g. imagine I think of a way to speed up Graphics cards with some software algorithm. I have the idea, but I don't have a factory that makes VGA controllers. I could contact Nvidia say and tell them my idea, but then they'd just use it and not pay me a dime.

Copyright doesn't help me here - you can get around copyright on code too easily by making trivial changes. Even worse if the copyrighted code is VHDL, you'd be hard pressed to prove any copyright violation by examining the ASIC that are synthesised by it. With a patent, you could get coverage for a broad range of algorithms - you could chuck test vectors at the ASIC and prove that it used one of range of algorithms your patent covered. E.g. for a cache somewhere in the visualisation pipeline, you'd just need to show a drastic slowdown when the input data varies enough to have a large miss rate. Copyright would be hopeless - they could just claim that they had coincidentally thought of the same idea. And you wouldn't be able to do anything about it, since the only way to prove copyright violation would be to examine their source code.

That's the point of patents - the inventor can have an idea and no money, and can sell the idea safely to the company with money and no idea.

It seems to me that the whole anti patent movement is made up by the kind of people that are most likely to need them - penniless but smart geeks, which is pretty ironic.

Re:"One-click"?

[Hal_Porter]

You have to wonder whether it would work actually. Remember that you're asking people that the patent office considers to be industry experts to moderate. Realistically, they'd be people who already have patents, and are thus likely to have a strong pro patent bias. It'd be like a kind of anti-slashdot. E.g.

Patent - Method for obtaining gaseous oxygen via inhalation.
+100 Highly original, Benefit to Mankind.

Complaint - my son suffocated after the patent, we couldn't afford the $1000/year license here in Ghana
-100 Whining, Communist, Unamerican, Dirty Gnu Hippie.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Occasionally I think the people of Slashdot are just a bunch of imbeciles. Then I read a post like this one and my faith is restored. I wish you had posted with your login, so I could have added you to my friend list.

For the record, IAAPL (patent lawyer)

Re:"One-click"?

[JLF65]

I can see why you post as an anonymous coward. If you think that disputing a patent only costs those fees the patent office charges, you're stupider than you sound.

Suppose DVForge paid the $3K to $8K to re-examine the patent. The first thing the patent holder will do is file suit against DVForge for patent infringement. After a patent is issued, even non-commercial development of similar items is an infringement. NOW the costs start going up.

The second thing the patent holder does is hire a patent attorney to write papers to submit to the re-examination saying why the patent is valid. Now is DVForge going to going to pay a pricey patent lawyer to write disputing papers for them? Even more money.

And it goes on from there. Microsoft usually spends several million dollars on trying to get patents overturned to avoid lawsuits. YOU need to grow up and look at the way patents REALLY work (or don't work as the case may be).

Re:"One-click"?

[Junior Samples]

8. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the FM transmitter produces an output frequency audio signal in a range of from about 85 to about 95 Megaherz.

The patent can probably circumvented by incorporating a transmitter frequency range that differs from that claimed in the patent. 88 to 108 MHz would be a good choice.

Re:"One-click"?

[BiggerIsBetter]

Seconded. I had a look through the patent, and also through Google. There's a zillion iPod interfaces using the phono plug to get the audio out, and mostly powered by the lighter socket. It seems like the only thing "different" to the rest of that market here is the Firewire interface - but the iPod is frigging designed for this! CD players and MP3 players have used FM transmitters for a few years now. You could argue that the holder is innovative, except it isn't because every cellphone has something similar on the market.

So, this design patent is stupid. It's an MP3 player (like a zillion others), and it's powered from the lighter socket (like a zillion others) and it's got Firewire (like Apple designer it to) but in a car!

It's like "but on the internet" all over again.

Re:"One-click"?

[telstar]

So it seems they've captured the market for rechargable cradles with an FM transmitter ... yet their product only works with iPODs. WTF are the rest of the MP3 players to do? Wait for them to design a cradle?

Re:"One-click"?

[syousef]

The patent system works. Yes, even for software patent. What the world needs however is patent reviewers that aren't orang-utang

So you're saying that relying on underpaid, overworked public servants in every country to do a specialist job correctly to perfection every time in a situation where every case is a one off is not a flaw in the patent system? Good luck finding these magical non-orguntang public servants. Please go look under the magic mushrooms right beside the fairies.

Perhaps adding a "patent meta-moderation" system like that of Slashdot

Oh yeah that's what we need. A system where ANY monkey can "meta-moderate". Have you seen some of the things that rise to the top under /. moderation. I know you haven't seen a lot of worth while things that got scored -1. I'd rather the current system to what you're describing, and I hate the current system with a passion.

Re:"One-click"?

[technoextreme]

The patent system works. Yes, even for software patent. What the world needs however is patent reviewers that aren't orang-utang, actually verify the claims and the prior arts, and are given enough time to get familiarized with whatever the patent application is dealing with, and accept or reject said application fairly.

Hey. I agree with you entirely. The patent system in the United States needs better reviwers. Not even the often used combover is safe from the stupidity of the United States patent system. It's not funny. It's pathetic. Im not even going to go into the Austrialian that actually patented the wheel. Perhaps we need more of these stupid and asinine patents to make a point. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,022,227.WKU.&OS=PN/4,022,227&RS =PN/4,022,227

Re:"One-click"?

[stor]

I like the idea of patent meta-moderation.

Hmm, if you subscribe can you beat the rush and see the ridiculous patent applications early?

Cheers
Stor

Re:"One-click"?

[./]

sure, adding a terminal "g" makes orangutan sound better, but it's wrong.

Re:"One-click"?

[mmeister]

Funny.. you say that the patent system works, but then go on to explain all the problems associated with it.

If the patent system works, we wouldn't have the one-click patent or the XOR patent. So the patent system IS NOT WORKING (even if the reason is because reviewers doing a good job).

I think software patents are even worse, since the timeframe for a patent is so long and the speed of development is so short. They give a virtual infinite lock on (what is often) an obvious idea.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you can't see why I post as an anonymous coward.

I post as an anonymous coward because I'm a patent attorney, and I don't wish to invite liability for my posts if some random idiot decides that my political argument constitutes particularized legal advice. You aren't liable for what you've written on this topic, so why should I be liable for what I've written?

Response to your first thing: So what - it's routine to have a patent infringement suit stayed while a patent is in reexamination proceedings before the USPTO. You act as if the people who founded the entity d/b/a DVForge, hired employees to design their product, and manufactured and/or arranged manufacturing of the product have never had to work with an attorney. Don't be so naive. One answer (caption, paragraphs of "Denied", and a laundry list of affirmative defenses) and one motion to stay (two pages of text) are not the significant costs that you're making them out to be.

Also, what does "even non-commercial development of similar items is an infringement" mean? I know what it means to me - you're trying to scare everyone with visions of gigantic dollar signs. However, this is not a RIAA/MPAA copyright suit, and the patent holder cannot demand $150,000 for each and every song/movie/doohickey. Instead, unless DVForge was aware of the patent claims, DVForge is liable for, at most, a "reasonable royalty". 35 U.S.C. sec. 284. There is going to have to have been one heck of a lot of non-commercial development for it even to be worthwhile to pursue an infringement suit as opposed to mailing a cease-and-desist letter. Plus you've presumed that the development has created actual products that are within the United States. *scoff* Royalties on a couple dozen development prototypes are sure to be scary when the product's manufactured in China.

Response to your second thing: Duh. If the prior art is as good as the whining on Slashdot would have you believe, then hiring an attorney will not be necessary because it will be self-evident. This would be a patent under reexamination, not an initial filing. The rulings are given greater scrutiny by the group leaders in the USPTO and any determination can be appealed before a very experienced group of examiners within the USPTO.

If the prior art isn't as good as that, then yes you/DVForge will have to hire a patent attorney. Imagine that. See the end of my post two levels up. The small-businessman-harassed-by-evil-attorneys image that you've constructed is a crock. Every significant business works within a scheme of local, state, and federal regulations which requires legal filings and legal advice, unless that business is so routine that you can get away with filing a handful of forms supplied by your State government (and many chose to use an attorney when establishing those businesses as well).

Unless you are licensed to practice before the USPTO and you've gone through both reexamination and patent litigation, you are in no position to tell me to "grow up". I have never claimed that spending money on attorneys will not improve your chances of achieving your goals, but it is out and out fraud to suggest that these supposedly "clear" cases of bogus patenting cannot be rectified by someone willing to spend four figures.

But do go on, as a practicing patent attorney I love to hear amateurs tell me how the system "REALLY work[s]".

Re:"One-click"?

[gessel]

This is the fundamental question: what are patents and copyrights for? The answer is right there, clearly in our constitution: "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts."

Most people, most patent lawyers, most congress people, most patent holders, certainly all representatives of the copyright industry would love to erase those simple words.

Because patents and copyrights are not, have never been about rewarding creators for the act of creation.

It is this fundamental error, promoted by the copyright industry, that poisons copyright and patent law to consider inventions "property." We do not, as a people, offer inventors "embarrassing monopolies" on that which intrinsically cannot be subject to ownership, the "fugitive fermentations of the individual mind," as a reward and certainly not ever as a right.

It is a mechanism by which we reward creators for sharing their work with us, for enriching the public domain, not for creating it in the first place. We as a society do not automatically gift inventors with ownership of their ideas, the very idea is preposterous, we grant them a temporary monopoly for the act of sharing. It is not the moment of invention, which is itself worthless to society, but about sharing an invention with society.

This leads to the most obvious test: no copyright law, no patent law is constitutional if it does not optimize the value of the public domain. If so doing means revoking all patents and all copyrights than we the people have that right "without claim or complaint by anyone."

If we applied that test the economically irrelevant entertainment industry would not be allowed to retard the progress of society with idiotic laws like the DMCA, laws which not only fail to meet the constitutional test but which obviously directly contradict it.

As for patenting software vs. simply copyrighting it, the whole issue has become muddied. The reason for not issuing patents is that you cannot patent a discovery, that is something you did not actually invent but merely found. Mathematical algorithms are found, they always existed, they are not invented. Software loosely fits the category of an extended mathematical algorithm, but perhaps not usefully. The constitution provides a clear guide out of this seeming quagmire: if the public domain is most enriched by copyright protection, than copyright should be used; if the public domain is most enriched by patents, then patents should be used. If the public domain is most enriched by stripping all monopoly protection, then all monopoly protection must be stripped.

Patents still reference their constitutional reason for being, unlike copyright anymore: patents speak of teaching the art in exchange for a temporary monopoly. Failing to properly teach the art (how to accurately and precisely implement the idea being protected, and to do so by the inventors best known method) is cause for revoking the patent. Copyrights are granted on inventions believed self-evident, so there's no parallel test. A book or song is the book or song, not the method of it's production (design patents are a bit of a fly in the ointment of this argument, but I'm choosing to ignore them). Copyrights were originally issued for 17 years, same as patents; it's an amazing testament to the power of graft that Disney and Grewshwin got their monopoly rights extended without showing any benefit for society.

As for obvious and poor patents, there are complex issues as to the cost of litigation. It's not immediately clear who should pay the cost of careful review, though the cost of such review relative to the value of the system as a whole is small, and would seem a prudent investment for society, at least if the system would actually work for society instead of for the "special interests" that own the legislative process.

If it were up to me:

• Copyrights owned by the inventor (creator) would be for the life of the individual.
• Copyrights transferred t

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for all of you whom AREN'T familiar with dvforge or the man behind curtains... In the mac world he is known to be a con-man. He claims he holds patents on products he is strictly buys from asian manufacturing facilities. Sells others' products by just rebranding them, etc etc. He also loves flame wars. comment on one of the mac sites and I'm sure he'll respond. His usernames change frequently so it's somewhat a pain to track him.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever. Patents flat out do not work, and are quite possibly the worst invention of our legal system.

Their goal was to allow companies and individuals to make good on their product r&d without threat of competition. That's called monopoly, and we have laws to prevent that. Right there is proof that the legal system is flawed.

It doesn't actually allow people to make good on their product, because it doesn't actually require a product, only an idea. Therefore it allows squatting, which only stifles innovation.

And finally, you are right about one thing, the people reviewing the patent claims are orang-utangs, otherwise there's no excuse for patent claims on perpetual motion and time travel machines.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhhh if only I had modpoints you'd be in flamebait heaven.

Associating the glorious and revered donkey, mascot of the beloved democratic party, with slashdot moderators? What is the world coming to?

Re:"One-click"?

[NickFortune]

And all I have to say to that is: Well said!

Thank you.

Re:"One-click"?

[syukton]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

(I don't normally post non-contributing comments like this, but I had to make an exception)

Re:"One-click"?

[syukton]

Yeah, but stupid-ass META moderations? Have you meta-moderated lately?

The meta moderation system doesn't allow you to pick and choose what you moderate. It presents you with a list of moderations and requests that you decide whether those moderations were fair or not.

Meta moderation is a way to police the stupid-ass moderations you speak of.

Re:"One-click"?

[syukton]

I'm not talking about a moderation system where Joe Schmoe gets to evaluate a patent's merits. I'm talking about a moderation system where people get to decide if the approval of a patent was fair or unfair, but they don't get to pick which patent approvals they are considering, they're presented a random list. They can meta-moderate as much as they want, but they don't get to pick what they meta-moderate.

In a similar vein, rejected patents should also be meta-moderated for fairness.

Re:"One-click"?

[stevenm86]

Is it possible for them to slightly modify the device to not fall under this patent. For instance, could they move the charging circuitry (regulator, etc) into the cigarette plug adapter, and then just running the wires up to the iPod connector? Or maybe do something similar with the FM circuitry, though that would be a bit more complex... ?

Re:"One-click"?

[bursch-X]

Well, but there'd be the difference that the Harry Potter books are stories about those kids, whereas in Japan they're dealing with the real life implementation.

Re:"One-click"?

[Zhe Mappel]

Good argument. However, little to nothing in the US justice system can be accomplished without spending a lot of money. Such is justice by and for the rich.

What is needed immediately is for a white hat to endow a fund that would pay the legal bills for patent challenges.

Elsewhere in this thread, a poster proposes using a meta-moderation system to weed out ridiculous patents. It's a sensible idea that, under our anti-meritocratic government, will never see the light of day. But such peer-based moderation, publicly established by an NGO, could be used to inform and direct the Unfair Patents Challenge Fund.

Re:"One-click"?

[Transcendent]

I agree on all counts accept one... I wouldn't even patent software.

You say it is close to a mathematical algorithm, but in my view there is no difference.

Simply because any processor acts as a simple mathematical function that takes in numbers in a base 2 format. It has an input, output, and the result is always predictable (hopefully). Because of this, it is a mathematical system and any manipulation of it (software) would be a mathematical algorithm based on a given set function (the hardware "processor").

Software is never invented, it is discovered... the series of events that occurs from a piece of software was always there since the processor allows for it and is designed for it, it's just that no one did it yet.

Re:"One-click"?

[Krid(O'Caign)]

Well, isn't the obvious solution to have the FM module be a seperate piece of equipment? Make the PodBuddy a car-powered charging station (Not covered by the patent - no FM transmition capabilities), then sell a seperate FM transmitter module (Also not covered by the patent, as it's seperate from the charging unit.) If the iPod is designed so that the FM transmitter can't be placed properly seperately, simply have a power pass-through (Still not covered by the patent, as the charger is in a seperate housing from the transmitter). Sadly, the mold might not be compatable with the redesign, and a second mold would be required - however, the sales resulting from being posted on slashdot as a victim of patent abuse would more than make this up. Heck, I'd buy one just to tick DLO off, and I don't even OWN an iPod!

Re:"One-click"?

[NanoGator]

"Meta moderation is a way to police the stupid-ass moderations you speak of."

No. It's a way to police the stupid ass moderators. The difference? Meta Moderations doesn't affect moderations, they kick moderators out of the pool.

I was kicked out. Two or three years ago, a couple of my posts were metamodded as unfair. They didn't agree with 'public opinion'. I would argue that my moderations were fair, but I never got a chance to defend myself. I haven't gotten a mod point since.

Yet, still, stupid moderations fly around here like it was an airport. Maybe some people do get blacklisted from ever being a mod, but since the general public is 'lotteried' to make more mods, then really all that's happening is that moderations happen as a matter of public opinion, and not from any real fairness. Result? Somebody was spreading FUD about MS. The FUD was bought by everybody around here. I modded it as troll. *Blam* bye bye mod points. Admittedly, I should have replied instead of moderated, but that comment would still have sat thre at +5.

Sorry, I just don't buy that meta-moderation works the way its supposed to. And frankly, the idea of meta-modding patents gives me the heebie jeebies. Everything Microsoft applies for would be m2'd as unfair, and everything Google applies for would be 'fair'.

Re:"One-click"?

[rzbx]

"Except that all software innovation is an incremental approach. Programs build on onther programs - this is well known and has been understood for decades."

Are there not increments in science and technology (hardware too)? You almost jumped off the IP propaganda boat, but just didn't quite make it.

"Granting patents on software will slow innovation, not speed it. It will slow it because no one will work to inprove your idea. Add enough software patents and no one will do any work, since anyone can get sued for any one of a number of patents, possibly undeclared."

Now take that statement of yours I posted above and replace software with other words, such as hardware or medicine... People see IP in a very limited scope I think. They will see how a patent would protect an individual or small group, but never apply this thinking to an entire society of billions of people. They do not see the corruption that such a system of law creates, and the complications it creates.

Most are very well aware of certain IP related institutions that are and have been using and increasing the power of the IP system. And we all see the occasional ridiculous patent issue. Then add all the IP conflict/corruption/infringement/etc. that is not very public (that you don't see on /. or your television news). There are millions upon millions of patents.

It is not the scientists, inventors, researchers, authors etc. that are pushing governments and organizations around the world for even stronger IP laws. There are expections, but that is a deeper issue on the corruption that IP creates.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhhh if only I had modpoints you'd be in flamebait heaven.

Modding a guy flamebait for telling the truth. Yeah, that's Slashdot, all right. I'm glad that you don't have any mod points. Hopefully, you won't have them for a long time. Jackasses like you who can't wait to apply negative mods are reasons why people complain about the mod system in the first place.

Re:"One-click"?

[duffahtolla]

Absolutely Beautiful! You have my vote.

Re:"One-click"?

[Evil Adrian]

Ugh... "stupider" is not a word. How old are you??

Re:"One-click"?

[kf6auf]

I like the theory of it, but I still see some stupid-ass moderations around here.

So I'm looking at your post and it's modded +5, Insightful.

...

I think this is an excellent example of the truth of your post.

Hrm, you can think of this two ways so I'll outline what they are and clarify what I meant. 1)Your post should not have been moderated up despite its truth. 2)What kind of moderator moderates +5, Insightful someone who calls moderators stupid? Either your post was correct and the moderators are stupid or maybe they're less stupid than you think and they're just screwing with you. Dang this is confusing, I don't even remember what I meant anymore.

::sigh:: Time to go for a walk.

Re:"One-click"?

[Noginbump]

"MP3 player"

I thought the iPod played a different file format?

Re:"One-click"?

[iomanip]

I don't know, sounds like some innovative marketing to me.

1. Create a product that infringes on a patent.
2. Tell consumers they can't have it unless they get the guy who owns the patent to buy it.
3. Profit.

Re:"One-click"?

[Sebby]

But imagine this: suppose I spend a lot of time and money developing some computing method that drastically reduce, say, the number of transistors in a CPU and its power consumption Then it is a HARDWARE patent (duh!)

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your defending your line of work. Fine, glad you enjoy it.

But I would argue that this is something that companies should NOT have to spend money on. Even for non-infringement, you propose a sum that many small business could not afford. And stronger legal opponents would easily push your legal bound, specially if they try to run up the cost.

As you mention, pattent law is a speicalty, and if my business were doing any pattent challanges, that would be external to my preexsisting legal relationships. They just do different things. That takes resources.

You talk about a prior art review. But a lot of the pattents challanged on slashdot are those which are interpreted more broadly then the author origionally intended or which fail to pass the obviousness test. These are harder to review, and harder to objectivly judge the success of the case.

Finally in your argument, you talk about business. But I routinely invent things outside of work. Your quoted figures are out of my price range. I guess I don't have the right to challange pattents (or protect my own).

There needs to be reform. Lets get a system in place that does what it inteded to do. What we have now is repuslive.

Re:"One-click"?

[Orinthe]

I'm not sure what you're getting at...

I was referring to the popularity of the "schoolkid discovers magical powers" genre in Japanese manga and anime, so, same thing. If I could revise my original post, I'd probably have said "I believe the Island of Japan has prior art."

If you're talking about the Japanese supposedly having the world's finest education system (producing magic kids that score highest in the world on standardized tests), you are very uninformed--I would never send one of my kids to school in Japan. In fact, I would rate their system significantly lower than that of many other countries like the US and much of Europe.

Test scores are an incredibly misleading way of rating education (though, unfortunately, the only currently feasible way), and the US government is doing its populace a major disservice by attempting to "catch up" to and imitate the Japanese in this regard.

Re:"One-click"?

[h4rm0ny]

That kind of works. Essentially, you are doing development work on spec, in the hopes that they'll like it enough to pay you for it and using public pressure to encourage the patent holder to do so.

Personally, I can't see what's patentable about this idea though. Admittedly, I'm smart, but a plastic cradle for an iPod with a few widgets built in is non-obvious? I don't think so.

Re:"One-click"?

[JLF65]

Old enough to at least be able to double-check with dictionary.com. :P

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stupider

I know, I know - teachers have been drilling the hell out of kids to avoid things like that.

More stupid instead of stupider. Jim and I instead of me and Jim. Problem is, the latter uses are just fine.

Re:"One-click"?

[JLF65]

I don't think I'm "scaring people" with "big dollar signs" here. I'm simply pointing out the DOZENS of cases you see EVERY MONTH in the news. You know, where Company X wins a $400 million judgement against Company Y because they tried to bring out a device that supposedly violates some obscure patent on using screws to hold your device together.

You need to read the news a little more if you think patent cases are cheap and easy to handle. I guess that's how you sucker people into retaining your services. No wonder you want to stay anonymous.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"wherein the main body portion contains the FM transmitter and power/charging circuitry," if you move the charge circuitry to the 'plug' where you connect to the lighter socket - my oppinion is you would no longer be breaching the patent... just a thought - personally i will not buy the product from the 'other people' as they have just demonstrated how little support they deserve

Re:"One-click"?

[Breetai]

The PodBuddy doesn't have cavity to mount the iPOD, it uses the connector to keep it in position. The patent als specifies you have to use an MP3 player. The iPod uses AAc if I recall correctly.

How do they infringe the patent?

Re:"One-click"?

[Gumshoe]

A piece of software isn't a story. It's a computational method. More like a recipe.

True, software is like a recipe but this doesn't support your argument. Recipe's aren't patentable or copyrightable.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Software has two parts: design and coding. Patents protect the design, copyright protects the coding. Quite often one person will do both jobs, but not necessarily.

Copyrights would not help create new algorithms and to the extent that it would, there would be less incentive to document them. You want to use the algorithm we developed? Well, we can't profit otherwise, so you only get our binary implementation. (which can be copyrighted) Not good enough? Shop someplace else.

Similarly, patents wouldn't pay for grunt coders who glue together known algorithms. Sure, their work is arguably less valuable, but it's still work and someone has to do it.

If I devise some great new compression method, should I get no reward? If someone else takes that technique and implements it, is that worth nothing?

Not to say that the system isn't in need of heavy reform at least, but both do apply to software.

Re:"One-click"?

[NickFortune]

Are there not increments in science and technology (hardware too)?

Increments in theory perhaps. But if I patent a pipe connector, then there's not a lot of room for increment, surely? I can make it larger or smaller, or of different substances, I might even paint it different colours. The design is still pretty much the same. To make something that isn't covered by the patent you'd need to make it work a different way, and that'd be fairly obvious.

At least that's how I think it should work.

You almost jumped off the IP propaganda boat, but just didn't quite make it.

Charmed, I'm sure.

It is not the scientists, inventors, researchers, authors etc. that are pushing governments and organizations around the world for even stronger IP laws. There are expections, but that is a deeper issue on the corruption that IP creates.

I think you missed out a step in your argument. Are you saying that all patents (and not just software ones) are bad? Or is your point that the harm stems from a patent system that is institutionally corrupt?

Re:"One-click"?

[bursch-X]

At least they have less analphabets than the US (which doesn't mean much these days, but still) and that despite their writing system being one of the most complex in the world.

They're using 3 (or 4 if you count the roman alphabet) different writing systems combined at the same time. That is 1945 Chinese characters (Kanji), 46 Hiragana syllable Characters and 46 Katakana syllable characters (of course highly specialized texts go beyond the base 1945 Chinese characters). Furthermore almost each of the 1945 Chinese characters has at least two readings, some even more than twenty.

Re:"One-click"?

[NickFortune]

Software has two parts: design and coding. Patents protect the design, copyright protects the coding. Quite often one person will do both jobs, but not necessarily.

And the algorithm is the design? You can argue with as much justification that the source coide is the design and that the executable is the product. Algorithms under this scheme would belong to the realm of mathematics and as such be subject to neither patent nor copyright.

Copyrights would not help create new algorithms and to the extent that it would, there would be less incentive to document them.

You think software will evolve faster if we have widespread software patents? I can't imagine how the field could develop faster it has so far, personally.

You want to use the algorithm we developed? Well, we can't profit otherwise, so you only get our binary implementation. (which can be copyrighted) Not good enough? Shop someplace else.

Whoa, you're giving your binary inplementation away for free? No? Then you can profit.

If I devise some great new compression method, should I get no reward? If someone else takes that technique and implements it, is that worth nothing?

What do you mean by "devise" here? If by devise you mean writing the words "method and aparatus for scrunching stuf up, really reeeallly small" on a patent form, then no, I don't think you do deserve a reward.

If on the other hand you use devise to mean "actually make the the thing work" then, yes, I feel you might reasonably expect some means to profit on that. Happily the mechanisms of copyright and NDAs will serve for you to market your innovation. Patents are not required.

And since they are not required, we should not permit them. Ideas belong to everyone. We should only grant even monopolies where there is a clear benefit to the commonality.

Re:"One-click"?

[Orinthe]

What's your point? Chinese has an even more complex character system with tens of thousands of characters when you start getting into older and classical texts. At least Japanese has syllabaries.

Oh, and I happen to speak, read and write Japanese.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

careful now, without copyrights you wouldnt be able to force someone to release code taken from an opens ource license

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the "system works", it's just the people in it that are at fault.

Sorry, no. A working system works despite component faults. A system that collapses if its components fail is called unreliable. A system that is in that state of collapse should never be described as "working"!

Re:"One-click"?

[TheKnave]

Crikey - imagine if the iPod was patented this way...

Re:"One-click"?

[rzbx]

"Are you saying that all patents (and not just software ones) are bad?"

Yes.

"Or is your point that the harm stems from a patent system that is institutionally corrupt?"

Also a yes. The corruption is an inevitable part of a bad system of law. Google for "Brian Martin intellectual property", he has a good outline against IP. There are many books and other articles, papers, etc. that do a good job of going into details.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Test scores are an incredibly misleading way of rating education (though, unfortunately, the only currently feasible way), and the US government is doing its populace a major disservice by attempting to "catch up" to and imitate the Japanese in this regard.

Test scores are not intended to measure success of a school. Rather, they are designed to pressure the school system to conform to the political elite's wishes. The politicians know full well that the test score racket causes ill-prepared schools to pressure marginal (and minority) students to drop out "for the good of the school".

There's no need for skilled laborers anyways, with the future the current White House has managed to reserve for us.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's actually a company that exists SOLEY to buy and own patents

SOLELY. SOLELY. SOLELY. "Soley" is how you pronounced the name of the greatest pro wrestling announcer of all time.

Re:"One-click"?

[Hal_Porter]

But that doesn't help - it's the choice of moderators that is the problem, not the choice of what they.

Interestingly letting "Joe Shmoe" (by which I mean the general unselected public) do it would actually be better, just like Joe Shmoe vote on say energy policy is better than letting only 'experts' do it. It's because the biases of the Joe Shmoe's tend to cancel out. Whereas the expert's biases tend to reinforce each other.

E.g. a slashdot expert will get to moderate. Being an expert means that they've spent a long time, and if they spent a long time here they must agree to some extent with the biases of the site. The same would happen with a patent moderation.

Actually, the problem is finding a scientific sample of Joe Schmoes. Maybe it could work like jury duty.

Re:"One-click"?

[NickFortune]

careful now, without copyrights you wouldnt be able to force someone to release code taken from an opens ource license

heh... but I'm not arguing against copyrights. Was that not clear? I'm arguing against software patents.

My point was that copyrights provide sufficent protection for software, proprietory or otherwise, and in doing so rebder software patents unnecessary. And since patents fail to achive their purpose when applied to software, and since they are not necessary in order to protect software, it therefore follows that we should not have them for software.

Copyright on the other hand is a good thing, although we could safely cut the duration back a bit. Rather a lot, in fact.

Re:"One-click"?

[NickFortune]

In which I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. Certainly the entire system is overdue for reform.

So I'm really curious what it was I said that put me on the "IP Propaganda Boat" in your book. I chose to restrict my commentary to the area I understand best, and one where debate is most urgently needed. Does that make a shill for some shadowy "intellectual property" cartel?

I've always thought that sort of "if you're not with us you're against us" attitude was rather self defeating, myself.

Re:"One-click"?

[xnot]

Unbelievable.

Way back before iPods were all that popular, I bought a $400 1st generation iPod, and soon after a FM transmitter/charger (one of the first available. I think it was after the iTrip came out- possibly after the 2nd gen iPod came out, because it had a switch for use with either). I wish I could remember the brand, but it was all white, connected at the top, and had a snakelike plasic arm you could adjust via turning little screws on the pieces.

The only thing I can think of is either the company didn't patent it, or the patent office is so screwed up that nobody knows it was already patented. Take your pick.

Re:"One-click"?

[ZahrGnosis]

The problem is that most of the complaints the Slashdot (and similar) crowd have with patents fall into the "obvious" clause, rather than the "prior-art" clause. The sections you cite here don't appear (I did read them, btw) to deal with that aspect of patent review.

The PodBuddy example is a perfect one for obviousness. Lets grant (without being sure) that no MP3 player car charger/FM transmitter was produced prior to the patent request. That lack of prior art still doesn't mean the request was non-obvious.

Car chargers are the norm for every piece of portable electronic equipment around. If the patent had solely been an MP3 car charger, the claim would be clearly "obvious" (even though the patent may have been granted) to anyone in the electronics product design universe.

Similarly, FM radio transmitters have been typical options for portable audio equipment for ages. Some products (and I had a cheap version of something similar in the early 1990s), allow FM retransmission of ANY headphone compatible device. In fact, the patent referenced in the original story mentions this at one point:

"Stereo transmitters of such type are readily commercially available, and are of appropriate size for incorporation in the modular docking unit."

Is the combining of these two common ideas really patent-worthy? Especially when products such as this one have been around for cell phones since prior to the patent in question. The only difference is that now it's an MP3 player and then it was a cell phone? Shenanigans, I say! This is an obvious progression of technology.

Sure there are a myriad number of other bits in the patent, but all of them are uninteresting. An LED to show on/off status. Variable frequencies of retransmission. 6-foot range. etc. Even the cited patents seem like someone just searched for "mp3" and picked a few. There's a SCUBA audio patent that I can't see having any real relation to the patent in question.

I'm sure patent lawyers have to go through all sorts of nonsense to create and defend patents, and alternately, to try to have them invalidated. Even if the public has a means of having "Prior-Art" cases reexamined (as you pointed out), it's clearly not sufficient. There needs to be a much clearer idea of how "obvious" an invention has to be to pass muster. If a large community of people believes that a patent was "obvious", there should be an easy method of reexamination on those merits as well.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

But I routinely invent things outside of work. Your quoted figures are out of my price range. I guess I don't have the right to challange pattents (or protect my own).

Do you routinely patent your inventions? I doubt it, since it costs around $15-25K to submit and prosecute a patent before the USPTO, including attorney time and government fees.

There is a threshold below which it is not economical to obtain a patent, it is not economical to sue someone for patent infringement, and it is not economical to defend a suit for patent infringement. That threshold is well above what it costs to request a reexamination proceeding before the USPTO. That was the entire point of the original post. Feel free to argue that it should be cheaper to obtain a patent, as I'm sure that will be a popular opinion with the Slashdot crowd.

But I would argue that this is something that companies should NOT have to spend money on.

As opposed to what? You claim to have run a business that employs a significant number of people with no attorney contact? Importing and manufacturing at times requires patent advice, just as media publishing at times requires copyright advice and accounting at times requires tax advice and running a gasoline station requires environmental advice.

More to the point, when have you ever been threatened with a suit for patent infringement? Are you also one of these people that rail against the so-called "Death Tax" because you have the teeniest, tiniest hope that you will die with more than the $2 million that would have triggered an actual tax on your estate before that portion of the law was temporarily tweaked? (http://www.t-b.com/88.html)

Of course you are. Poor, innocent DVForge (http://www.dvforge.com/company.shtml)... they can afford to set up a C corporation, at least one CNC machine, a 20,000 square foot facility, and a law firm but they can't afford the $2520 that it would cost to contest the nasty patent using all of the killer prior art that has been brought up in these Slashdot comments.

Bull.

Re:"One-click"?

[IsoRashi]

No one else will probably see this, but it reminds me of something my dad said this weekend... I had made a comment as to how our justice system was all sorts of fucked up, and he replied, "We don't have a justice system--we have a legal system."

Just thought I'd share...

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are scaring people with big dollar signs. Instead of creating the $400 million strawman, point out a particular case.

What people would find, if you ever bothered, is that the $400 million case was the judgment rendered on $1.4 billion on profits derived from a much greater volume of sales. Or, when the judgment is really large, a number that has been doubled or trebled because the poor innocent party that infringed the patent was perfectly aware of the patent and the patent claims and decided to just do it anyway - something that's called willful infringement.

The man who invented intermittent windshield wipers sued Ford and Chrysler and got, wait for it, judgments totalling $25 million. That's right, two of the three largest automakers in the United States, over something incorporated into an expensive product that practically everyone buys, only $25 million.

Your giant numbers are boogymen racked up by the most predatory companies to exist in the latter half of the 20th century (yes, let us bemoan Microsoft's fate... the employees of Burst salute you).

Re:"One-click"?

[pqdave]

Do you meta-moderate? When I do, I get mod points 2-4 times a month. When I don't, I get mod points every few months. Don't know if that's the cause here, but...

Re:"One-click"?

[taboo959]

Very well said....you have my vote as well.

If I may, some minor suggestions:

1/No more legalese. In other words, the application should be written in clear, unambiguous english.
The current need for a specialized patent or IP lawyer that costs more than the application itself is appalling.
The fact that legal terms are used to obscure the specific implementation is equally appalling. It makes bad patents (ie obvious or overly broad) much more difficult to remove, as "someone well-versed in the field" should not be required to be well-versed in patent law as well.
If you need examples of this, look back over Slashdot discussions of recent patents and see how differently they get interpreted by different people. That should not be happening.
Hehe. I'm of the opinion that the world would be a much happier place if all contracts were written this way as well, but that's a different discussion...... :)

2/There needs to be a requirement for the patent to be for a very specific implementation of the idea. While this does allow for the "widget in a cell phone" and "same widget in an MP3 player" patents (possibly not a good thing), often extensions of an idea come from new implementations of that idea.
This would stop the "we developed this implementation in 1990 and now XXX company makes something that sorta-kinda works the same way. Since they seem to be successful with it, we're going to sue" lawsuits.

Re:"One-click"?

[Rhipf]

Don't let modern history blind you to the fact that the planet had been around of billions of years (and humans for several thousands) yet things were still invented. Inventions aren't a new idea.

Re:"One-click"?

[tzanger]

Don't let modern history blind you to the fact that the planet had been around of billions of years (and humans for several thousands) yet things were still invented. Inventions aren't a new idea.

Typical absurdity argument. I won't bother commenting past the fact that most of the things patents are useful for these days require enormous investment in time and equipment and materials, and that it's trivial to copy them once the hard work's been done, and with the world as small as it is these days you don't even have geographic separation in order to keep your market.

Nice try though.

Re:"One-click"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Poor, innocent DVForge (http://www.dvforge.com/company.shtml)... they can afford to set up a C corporation, at least one CNC machine, a 20,000 square foot facility, and a law firm but they can't afford the $2520 that it would cost to contest the nasty patent using all of the killer prior art that has been brought up in these Slashdot comments."

That law firm they have on retainer probably advised them that their product is quite likely an infringement of the cited patent and that they would probably lose in a reexamination. So they decided to cut their loses and cease development while using the whole "it's too expensive" argument as a smokescreen to get customers to deliver a barrage of nasty/angry e-mails to the patent owner.

Re:"One-click"?

[rzbx]

The thing that puts you on the IP propaganda boat is that you believe in IP. It doesn't matter how far the reach goes, you at least believe there should still be an IP system, but reformed (like many others do).

But how often do people consider the complete elimination of such a system? I think some people immediately jump to conclusions of catastrophy, as if somehow without IP we can no longer pursue works of science and art.

We can go back to the very foundation of the IP argument, which is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts...". Now one must ask the obvious question, does IP "promote the progress of science and useful arts"? For the most part, I believe the answer is no.

We are led to believe that somehow progress is tightly linked with the ability to impose idea monopolies. Somehow we are all led to believe that without these monopolies that someone else will just copy the idea that somehow that will ultimately stop progress. But how does creating a monopoly on an existing idea help promote progress? Essentially, progress is about change. IP is not about change, but about what has already happened and securing a monopoly in the marketplace on that existing idea.

Governments and many other organizations around the world already fund science and art. There is no need to promote science and art by monopolizing it. Ideas spread like fire, there is no need to reproduce them with heavy cost. In an ideal world, the better ideas win over the not so good ones. Unfortunately, the IP system has created an artificial barrier to the distribution of the very foundation of our existance. The system exists soley to keep certain players at the top and prevent anyone else from promoting actual progress.

There is a reason that Thomas Jefferson was not happy about the idea of IP. I personally believe that he was completely against the idea (and I'm sure if I studied the subject farther it would show). But he eventually gave in, why? Part of it could be that he was to be in charge of the IP system. Another simple to understand concept is pursuation. Given enough time, money, etc. the wealthy business interests pushed the idea through.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not in support of sudden elimination of the IP system, but a gradual elimination (5-15 years) starting with, for example, the oldest of patents. Trademarks and copyright are another issue. Trademarks are fine for the most part. Copyright on the other hand needs to be reformed, but not eliminated. The very core of copyright should protect only two things, plagiarism (lying of any and all sorts) and direct profiteering off of anothers work without consent.

I am not against rewarding those that contribute to society, but the IP system is not the way to do it.

How else will the poor people around the world eliminate poverty than by using the best ideas available? Instead, the wealthy have used the IP system to exploit the poor.

I'm babbling off, sorry. I could go on and on about why IP was such a bad idea, but I'll just stop right here.

Re:"One-click"?

[NickFortune]

The thing that puts you on the IP propaganda boat is that you believe in IP. It doesn't matter how far the reach goes, you at least believe there should still be an IP system, but reformed (like many others do).

Well, I must say, you've made my day. I've been accused of a lot of things, but one charge I never expected to have leveled at me was that of being an intellectual property propagandist.

Of course, you then go on to say

Copyright on the other hand needs to be reformed, but not eliminated. The very core of copyright should protect only two things, plagiarism (lying of any and all sorts) and direct profiteering off of anothers work without consent.

So I guess you must support IP too. Careful you don't get your feet wet as you get on the boat now :)

Incidentally, you might want to avoid the terms "IP" and "intellectual property". As Stallman pointed out, it has the effect of conflating a number of distinct legal concepts, each of which works differently and under different circumstances. This in turn tends to cloud the issue, which leads to absurdities like the notion that acceptance of the need for a reformed copyright system implies support for the whole "IP" bundle.

Moreover, the term "intellectual property" implies acceptance of the Big Lie of the pro-patent lobby - that ideas should be regarded as property. I hope you'll agree with me that this is a Bad Thing.

Re:"One-click"?

[bursch-X]

Yeah, but what's the rate of analphabets in China? See?

Also the writing system in China might be difficult in so far that you have to learn a lot of characters, but it's one system all "Kanji"--I wouldn't count it as complex as the Japanese, who might use far less Kanji, but they mix several writing systems and have all those readings for the same character, and they often mix them up (combining kun-reading with on-reading).

I just say, despite the pupils having to sacrifice a considerate amount of time for learning to read and write (much more than in roman alphabet based languages), they still have less analphabets than the US. And this means that they must be doing something right.

BTW I'm also fluent in Japanese speaking, reading and writing

Re:"One-click"?

[iminplaya]

The patent system works.

Yeah. If you're Microsoft, IBM, RCA, Monsanto, Dow Chemical...It works just dandy. An even bigger bureaucracy will make it work better. History has proven that bigger is always better. Let's keep on piling on one watch dog on top of another. We'll get it right someday...Or we could go the easy route that would benefit everybody...Nah. Better to work with the devil we know.

...FM transmitter

We all know how that went down. Don't we?

Re:"One-click"?

[rzbx]

My mistake. I apologize for lumping the IP thing altogether and forgetting about the fact that IP means a lot of different things.

I didn't mean that your a propagandist (I worded that really badly). I'm usually pretty good at editing myself, but sometimes I slip by when expressing my thoughts (language is a bit limited when it comes to expressing our thoughts and sometimes I get mixed up on meanings, which we all do at times).

And I definitely agree; ideas as property is a Bad Thing. Also, thanks, not too many people are willing to even consider the option of no patent system, or have a conversation about the subject. :)

Re:"One-click"?

[Rhipf]

And only modern inventions "require enormous investment in time and equipment and materials"? Talk about absurdity arguments.

Re:"One-click"?

[tzanger]

I never said that only modern inventions require it. Don't put words into my mouth. But let's see if you'll put your money where your mouth is. Quantum physics. Nanotechnology. Bio-anything. You spend millions of dollars and expend enormous amounts of time, energy and resources into developing useful devices which utilize these fields of technology, and you release it to the world (let's say North America/Europe) without any kind of patent protection, and then you watch as the businesses with the resources to make use of your invention copy it and help you recoup the development costs.

Oh wait, that's right. It won't happen. You're not that stupid.

Re:"One-click"?

[NickFortune]

No problem :) That IP meme can be very infectious.

A patent free world is an interesting idea. I suppose that your archetypal lone inventor would carry on inventing stuff, much the same way open source coders write software without expecting recompense. I expect we'd even see large scale projects co-ordinated over the internet.

The place where the comparison with FLOSS breaks down is manufacture and distribution. With software your manufacture phase involves compiling the source and distribution involves finding a friendly ftp server. Setting up a production line, raw materials, warehousing... they all involve expenditure that's absent in the software world.

Why is that important? Well, development without hope of recompense only works in the software world because production costs are negligible. This means the product can be made available for zero cost, which makes it hard for competitors to take your product and undercut your price.

On the other hand, if we're marketing, say, one-shot disposable MP3 players, then we need to charge enough to recover the costs of setting up and maintaining a production line. But once we invest that capital, we're vulnerable.

A big manufacturing concern can set up a much larger plant, or retool an existing production line, and undercut you through economies of scale. Established players can probably afford to out advertise you as well. If that happens, you may never recoup your expenditure, which would certainly discourage further projects. It's bad enough that so many new products fail, but to have one succeed only to have a competitor take it away from you...

So as far as I can see, that's the main objection you'll need to overcome before you get any sort of widespread acceptance for the idea - the problem that scrapping patents would let the big manufacturing and marketing concens dominate just about everything. Until you can explain what mechanism will stop that from happening, people are going be sceptical

Of course, if 3D printers ever live up to their promise, that'd change things considerably.

Re:"One-click"?

[GutBomb]

Copyright would be hopeless - they could just claim that they had coincidentally thought of the same idea.

But what if they had coincidentally thought of the same idea? They get sued because someone came up with it before but never even put it out on the market. The fact that 2 different entities came up with it should put it into the obvious category. All of this is irellivant because the story is like saying that chevy can't make cars because ford did it first. Some things are obvious. A mobile charger/transmitter device for a portable audio player is one of those obvious things.

Re:"One-click"?

[Hal_Porter]

If they had the same idea independently, I think they can claim prior art.

If it's an obvious patent, it shouldn't have been granted.

Re:"One-click"?

[M-RES]

Actually, I'm just wondering if using an FM transmitter with an iPod could land you in legal hot water. Not sure about the US, but in order to broadcast in the UK (if a 3rd party can freely tune into that broadcast) you need a radio broadcasters licence. And in order to broadcast copyrighted music in the UK you need to submit a copy of your playlist and pay the copyright owners their royalties through the PRS. Hmmm... maybe it's time to start legal proceedings against the manufacturers of these devices for inciting illegal radio broadcasts... mwuhahaha!!!

PodBuddy vs TransPod

[Seumas]

I'm conflicted about such things.

I see the point in protecting someone who has an idea so that they can have time to research, develop, test, produce, market and distribute their products without a competitor moving in on their idea. That is, if I come up with a great idea and Microsoft finds out I'm working on it and puts all their clout behind their own version of the product and, thus, beat me to the punch simply because of their sheer size, it isn't fair and I would tend to say it isn't right.

On the other hand, if people come up with an idea independently - meaning one did not steal the idea from the other - then whoever gets to market first gets to market first. Whoever dominates.. dominates. That's all there is to it.

Of course, the problem is in proving that you came up with the idea on your own, too. So we have this silly patent system that only allows "one true originator" of an idea. And that seems to be stifling the ass off of innovation and progress.

This PodBuddy thing seems like a reasonable idea. And it does seem unique enough to be excused from the patent (just a total layperson's opinion). It seems like the competition just doesn't want competition and it's sad that a country that prides itself on promoting innovation and small-business would so readily let one company just roll over the other to eliminate the competitive market. And not on any justifiable premise, either. Just "we have more money than you - you can't afford to contest us in court". And you're fucked.

Then again, if the DVForge guys thought they had a chance, I would think they'd push it in court (they could always recover the costs, right?). So they must feel they are actually on shaky ground, too.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[DarthWiggle]

Concerning "recovering costs", no, the US does not have a loser pays system, so DVForge would bear all attorney's fees in a patent dispute. They might be reimbursed for "costs", which are things like filing fees, but which are a trivial amount compared to what the lawyers would charge.

The problem with this is that the patent system now seems to be used to protect general categories of goods rather than *very* specific inventions. If DVForge was copying the other folks, then, yes, their patent should protect the other company. But patents were never meant to preclude improvements to an invention or independent inventions that accomplish the same purpose but with different mechanisms.

As for stifling innovation, the sad irony is that patents were intended to *promote* innovation, by allowing inventors to invent and then profit from their invention. Nothing wrong with that. But now inventors are using patents to protect their profits from that item *and* to force other inventors not to try to improve the item.

Stupid situation.

In other news, I was wanting to buy one of those PodBuddy things, since the competitor's item is, frankly, ugly as sin, and I don't need the FM transmitter part (DVForge has one without the transmitter).

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[Markmarkmark]

No, you cannot usually recover your costs in defending a patent claim.

Also, the expense of defending this type of claim is on average $750,000 to trial and $1.5 through appeals. Just not worth it for the potential return.

At least in this case the guys blocking them are actually shipping a similar product. Many times the patent holder hasn't made a product and does't intend to, they just want to make anyone who does pay. Sadly, these patent holders are often not interested in licensing a small company to make a product. They are basically waiting hoping that a big player stumbles into their patent trap.

--- Mark

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[BackInIraq]

Then again, if the DVForge guys thought they had a chance, I would think they'd push it in court (they could always recover the costs, right?). So they must feel they are actually on shaky ground, too.

They wouldn't even recover court costs if they lose, and would need to pay for representation either way. And no, they probably wouldn't push it just because they thought they had a chance, because such legal battles are very high-stakes games.

Imagine for a moment I walk up to you with one (six-sided) die. I tell you that 1-4 you win, 5 and 6 are mine. I'll give you even odds, so the edge is definitely yours. But the stakes are *everything you own*, and you only get to roll *once*. Would you take that? Really?

Granted, in the legal system you might get to roll more than once...but appeals cost money. Money on top of what you've already spent for the original battle, which if you lost you probably don't have. Unless your lawyers are working pro-bono (which is unlikely in a patent dispute between businesses), this is an incredibly risky proposition, even if you think your case is solid. The smarter move for a small (an Apple or Microsoft would fight this in an instant, whether they thought they'd win or not) business is to just walk away.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[jkabbe]

But now inventors are using patents to protect their profits from that item *and* to force other inventors not to try to improve the item.

Actually the opposite is often true. If DVForge has something additional to add to the DLO invention, they can get a patent on that. This is the case even though DVForge would not be able to practice their invention without violating DLO's patent. If the additonal invention is truly worthwhile, it is possible that a cross-licensing deal can be reached. This happens all the time.

Another option is for DVForge to take an entirely different tack altogether - one that doesn't violate the DLO patent. That encourages innovation of a sort, just in a different direction.

But, the bottom line is that - yes - the patent is used to protect the profits from an item. That's precisely how the patent system is supposed to encourage investment in invention and technology. Businesses and venture capitalists aren't going to chase after something if there is no money to be made at the end.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[DarthWiggle]

I agree completely with what you're saying about the routes that DVForge can take to avoid DLO's patent.

My point is that DVForge notes on their website that they cannot *afford* to challenge the patent, and that, despite the merit of their claim, they are surrendering to the threat.

That's the BS thing here: the patent system should be protecting DVForge (or at least giving them the chance to make a good faith argument), but DLO is counting on DVForge's unwillingness to spend tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to find a way to market for a $23,000 invention that retails for ~$100.

So, according to the theory behind the patent system, you're right on the money, and if I had modpoints, you'd get them. But DLO is abusing the system.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[kansas1051]

PodBuddy is free to make a device without a FM transmitter that would not infringe DVForge's patent. A scope of its patent is determiend by its claims and not anything else. The broadest claim of the patent is:

"1. An FM transmitter and power supply/charging assembly electrically coupleable with an MP3 player, said assembly comprising a modular docking unit having a main body portion with a docking cavity therein, wherein the main body portion contains said FM transmitter and power/charging circuitry, with coupling means in the docking cavity for connecting the MP3 player with the FM transmitter and power/charging circuitry, to accommodate FM transmission by said FM transmitter of audio content when played by said MP3 player in the docking cavity of the modular docking unit, and with means for transmitting electrical power through said modular docking unit and said power/charging circuitry therein, for charging of a battery of the MP3 player and/or powering of the MP3 player. "

A device without an FM Transmitter could not infringe this patent because it would not include all claim limitations.

That being said, I cant imagine how the quoted claim is not obvious in view of the prior art as car FM transmitters that charge a device have been around for at least a decade.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[DarthWiggle]

Yep, but they're selling the FM-less PodBuddy (the one I would buy, fwiw) for $69.99, or ~1/3 less than the FM PodBuddy. It will take them 1/3 longer (or more) to recoup their investment even assuming there was that much of a market for an iPod car mount without any sort of transmitter. So, yes, they *could* make it, but it might not be economically feasible for them to do so.

Disappointing.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[Rageon]

It's been a while since my U.S. Patent Law course, so maybe I should know this already. Why is it a given that they would have to pay the other party's fees if they lost? My impression was that (outside of the Civil Rights context) at the trial level, only frivolous claims were subject to fee awards. Someone with a little move experience as a lawyer than me want to clarify this?

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[jkabbe]

It's probably also true that DLO can't afford to defend a challenge to the patent. What if DVForge was Microsoft? And what if Microsoft was threatening DLO with a patent lawsuit that DLO couldn't afford to defend against so DLO was forced to license their patent at a ridiculously low royalty?

You make it sound like anyone other than a big corporation suing another big corporation is abuse. In fact, I would argue that the situation of big corporations is subject to the most abuse - by patent lawyers pumping them for hours.

But DVForge is not without options. For just a few thousand dollars DVForge can ask the patent office to reexamine the patent in the light of new evidence of patent invalidity. So if DVForge really does have a good argument, and they can prove that the patent shouldn't be valid, they can ask the USPTO to revoke or modify the patent. This option is becoming more and more popular. It may take some time, but it is possible to get rid of a patent this way.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[Anonymous Coward]

There is still the possibility of patent infringement under the "Doctrine of Equivalents." If a court found that the FM Transmitterless PodBuddy was still largely equivalent to the patented device, they could still have a big problem on their hands.

Patent law sucks.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[Arker]

As for stifling innovation, the sad irony is that patents were intended to *promote* innovation, by allowing inventors to invent and then profit from their invention.

Close, but not quite. It was supposed to promote innovation, by getting inventors to disclose their secrets technological advances instead of treating them as trade secrets.

Now how many recent patents can you think of that disclosed any cutting edge technological secrets?

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[rootofevil]

Not to mention the transpod totally sucks balls.

I bought one for a friend of mine for her birthday. Might as well have burned the money, itd have been put to better use.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[Anonymous Coward]

the law doesn't care about "fair" and "unfair" its simply a rule set for a game system. The law makes no consideration for fairness. In essence it's a system without a soul, those that know the rules and can exploit them to maximum advantage win the game. Only in a democratic society can we change the laws if they are unfiar. This allows feedback to occur and evolve the system.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

After having done a bit of reading about the DVForge guy, its clear he's not filing suit because he's a massively sketchy scammer. Look at the DLO webside, and you'll see the TransPod, which looks like it might actually work as an arm-based ipod holder/charger. In comparison, the PodBuddy looks pretty weak, like its standing up on a cord, not an arm, and like its been drawn in photoshop, rather than actually built, even a prototype.

The DLO folks didnt want the PodBuddy, because they already have a similar product. that was apparently there first. and that, to my admittedly untrained eye, looks far superior.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[DarthWiggle]

Well, yes. Promote innovation by creating a system through which technological advances could be disclosed to the public while allowing the original inventor to profit from the original design despite the disclosure while at the same time providing meat for people to improve the invention.

And, to answer your question, not damn many. Most of them are more like someone noting that a drinking glass isn't patented and quickly patenting the "Static Component Drinking Vessel."

I dunno, as a matter of policy, I'm quite happy to allow companies to recover their investment if they a) invent something new and b) open the invention sufficiently to encourage competitors. As a matter of practicality, the patent term is outrageously long for a period of rapid technological change and it has made the patent system into, essentially, a monopoly system for the practical life of a product, which *isn't* what the wacky Venetians had in mind when they created the patent system.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[servoled]

My point is that DVForge notes on their website that they cannot *afford* to challenge the patent, and that, despite the merit of their claim, they are surrendering to the threat. .... DLO is counting on DVForge's unwillingness to spend tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to find a way to market

Regardless of what you may have been lead to believe a lawyer is not required to challenge a patent or go to court. It may help your chances, but if you have a good case you can pursue it yourself easily enough with a little bit of work.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[Mac Degger]

"On the other hand, if people come up with an idea independently - meaning one did not steal the idea from the other - then whoever gets to market first gets to market first. Whoever dominates.. dominates. That's all there is to it."

And that's the crux of the matter, right there. This kind of thing is happening more and more often, and it will continue to happen. The invention of the telephone, the invention of powered flight...these things happened a century ago, but they are famous for their parralel invention. Or what about the printing press/movable type? That was invented by two people, across the globe, nearly half a millenium ago! And with the increase in population, this type of thing is going to keep on happening, more and more often.

And that is why I advocate the abolishion of the whole patent/copywright concept. Since it's inception it has never worked how it should, has stiffled innovation and competition and only adds paperwork. I mean, it's not like patents/copywright is an ages old tradition. It's hardly even two hundred years old! And it has been failing all that time...it does not do what it is intented to do. So bin it.

But replace it with what? With a free-for-all. Devellop your concept and produce it. You already have first mover advantage: that is the only right you're 'entitled' to. If some small company then, after you're on the marketplace selling your thing, decides tyo copy your product...well, we are working in a system of capitalism, are we not? If you can't use your first-to-market-advantage to out sell your competitor...you suck at business and the marketplace has taken care of your lack of competitiveness.
If, however, a large corporation steals your idea and develops it...charge them with theft or tresspassing. They would have had to physically or electronically enter your premises to steal the information. If they stole drawings, it's theft. If they copied your harddrive, it's tresspassing. Easy.

So let Bonno or something do this for the developiong world: get rid of patents/copywrights. It's a thorn in thirdworld countries side anyway. It would also mean that pharmaceutical companies would start developing drugs which didn't just counter symptoms but solved problems, as they'd get the same profit from both types of drugs...but at the moment fighting symptoms gets them more money due to the fact that long copyright/patents give them more money over the long run for their drugs...and the long run means symptomremoval instead of curing the disease, 'cause that's done just once.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[DarthWiggle]

Regardless of what you may have been lead to believe a lawyer is not required to challenge a patent or go to court.

And any corporate counsel who did not counsel his corporate client to get specialist representation to either challenge a patent or defend against an infringement action would be committing gross professional malpractice. Any corporate CEO who spent his or her time representing his or her company in such an action rather than running the business would either be deposed by the board or abandoned by the shareholders. Your theory might be fine for Jane Inventor working out of her garage, but a corporation would be insane to entrust itself to the "care" of management that didn't lawyer up when threatened by a (frivolous) patent infringement claim.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[servoled]

If the claim is truly frivolous as you say they should have no problem getting the case thrown out in court. Any competent engineer/manager should be able to defend against a frivolous case. If they can't manage to do that properly either the case has merit or they shouldn't be in business to begin with.

If they can afford counsel then all the better, but if they can't and are in danger of being put out of business by a patent claim they should at least have the guts to stand up for themselves if they think they are in the right.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[kansas1051]

The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to negate/eliminate claim limitations. So DOE would not remove the limitation "FM transmitter" from the claims. What DOE would do, is perhaps render infringing a device with an AM transmitter instead of an FM transmitter [if a AM transmitter is considered equivalent to a FM transmitter]. By law, the lack of an element is never the equivalent of the element.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[Seumas]

I pretty much agree.

The patent office doesn't really have anything to do with preventing theft of an idea or making sure the right person gets to use their idea. The patent office is just about giving someone the exclusive right to the focus of the idea long enough to make it financially desirable for them to produce it and for someone else later to extend it. To spur "innovation" as it were (at least, in idealistic theory) by providing market-incentive.

You could do away with the patent office entirely and still rely on the court system to seek justice if someone actually STEALS your idea. STEALING your idea is clealry a different thing than simply building-on or simultaneously sharing "your" idea.

Of course, I also happen to think that the base-line for patents are absurd and made to keep the small guy out. Even if I have a bunch of great ideas, I can't afford the insane fees. I can't drop down $20,000 just because I have an idea. But an IBM or a Microsoft can afford to patent every thought of every employee for eternity and still not make a financial dent.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[Tim C]

How many recent patents have you read? IBM alone was granted over 3000 last year...

Slashdot only ever reports on the patents that it sees as beinog frivolous, and even then that's generally only judged from the abstract, which is a dangerous thing to do.

Re:PodBuddy vs TransPod

[phorm]

. I tell you that 1-4 you win, 5 and 6 are mine. I'll give you even odds, so the edge is definitely yours. But the stakes are *everything you own*, and you only get to roll *once*.

They already have a lottery like that. It's called marriage, but the stakes are for about half.

"Everything you own" is really a relative proposition... you might not play it against your neighbour but how about if the other player were, say, Bill Gates?

The problem here isn't necessarily the odds of winning, it's the cost of admission. Sure I might win against Bill in a game of dice, but if the cost to play is an initial $500,000 I couldn't even afford to enter... which is why the little guy gets screwed when the courts become an arena for the rich.

That being said, what do they lose if they represent themselves? If they aren't making the product it ain't going anywhere... a show of force might even make the opposing company

Unbiased reporting

[Umbral Blot]

Me thinks that someone may have a slightly anti-patent outlook on life. You are probably right, but generally I expect to see strong opinions down here in the comments section, not in the article itsself.

Re:Unbiased reporting

[Seumas]

generally I expect to see strong opinions down here in the comments section, not in the article itsself.

Welcome to Slashdot. You must be new here?

Re:Unbiased reporting

[110010001000]

This is slashdot. The editors will tell you what to think. This will save you from having to think for yourself.

Re:Unbiased reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

God damn, you are dumb. Read the fucking patent. Being anti-this isn't bias. It is basic common sense. Fucktard.

There is Itrip already

[Anonymous Coward]

and besides, it's illegal to use outside the US anyway.

Re:There is Itrip already

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

It's illegal if you're caught. I doubt anybody will catch you using a low-power FM transmitter in your car. For many illegal things, when you don't have the right, take the left...

Timothy

[CrackedButter]

Type the headline and a short blurb and leave out the opinion. If you want yours heard, post it like the rest of us.

Re:Timothy

[MustardMan]

Only the opinion was part of the quoted text, and therefore that of the article submittor, not timothy. Nice attempt to blame the /. editors though. Even got modded insightful for that troll. Bravo.

Re:Timothy

[SmittyTheBold]

That's not Timothy's editorializing, that's from the submitter - hence the italics.

Agreed, though, the submitter basically re-posted DVForge's position on the topic.

Re:Timothy

[CrackedButter]

I wasn't trolling. I thought it was his opinion again, something that Timothy does quite often. I missed the quotes, as did the moderator.

Re:Timothy

[justforaday]

Okay, I could understand missing the quotes, but did you miss the italics, too?

Re:Timothy

[threv]

clearly you are blind.

Isn't this what patents are for ?

[Space cowboy]

If I have an idea for a device that hasn't been made before, I can patent the idea then openly market it without fear that someone else will come along and out-muscle me in the marketplace.

It seems to me that the PodBuddy is a blatant copy (presumably it's the second-to-market given the other guys have the patent), with a sexier-looking arm for attaching it to the car. The functionality looks to be identical.

You could argue whether the patent itself ought to have been issued (is it *really* a non-obvious invention?) but I don't think you can argue the patent-holder is doing anything wrong. I don't particularly like the idea of patents (especially software patents), but given we have them, it seems to me this is what they're supposed to be there for....

Simon

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I have an idea for a device that hasn't been made before, I can patent the idea then openly market it without fear that someone else will come along and out-muscle me in the marketplace."

Well there is your problem. You can't patent ideas you patent inventions. At least that's the way it supposed to work. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that the patent office knows the difference between an idea and an invention.

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[DarthWiggle]

Patents don't protect general functionality. Patents protect specific inventions. If patents produced a black box of functionality where the uniqueness was defined by outcomes rather than what happens inside the black box, the patent system wouldn't have lasted as long as it has. The current transmutation of the patent system into a system that protects outcomes (e.g., an arm-based digital media player mount with FM radio) rather than the specific elements that make it a unique and useful invention is threatening the real value that the patent system offers: providing inventors with an incentive to invent by protecting their profits from that specific invention over a short term.

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[mad.frog]

Hear hear. There's plenty of patent abuse around (especially in software patents), but this doesn't appear to be one of 'em... one company patents the idea, the other company cries foul, because, well, they want to use the patented idea.

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[chochos]

I agree. The PodBuddy manufacturers should just license the patent from these guys. Isn't that what you're supposed to do if you have a product similar to something that's already been patented? Software patents are bad for a lot of reasons, especially because it hinders open source software development because if the author of a program is giving it away with source code and is using something patented, there's no way he can give the patent holder any money. But in this case, the podbuddy won't be free in any way, so the manufacturers can pay the license to the patent holders and add that to the price of their product. I know the patent holders are suing (or threatening to sue) the podbuddy manufacturers, but isn't that the usual way of saying "we want something" in the US lately? An actor wants a raise on a series, he sues. The series producers want someone out, they sue. The patent holders want the manufacturer of a similar product to pay for the license, they sue... it's kind of stupid IMHO but it seems to me that this guys took it too seriously. I don't see anywhere in the text a mention of trying to license the patent (and I was kind of expecting to read about that but the patent holder putting a price too high or something).

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe I've seen other devices that do the exact same thing. And I'm pretty sure they didn't pony up for the patent license from DLO.

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[scotty1024]

Patents are intended to help the public by creating an environment in which those who develop ideas can recover money from their inventions thus there is an economic incentive to those inventors to develop new inventions. In this case DLO clearly spent $5K (if that much) on molds for their design and they clearly feel the PodBuddy would out class their product. If I was their attorney I'd advise them to license the patent and use the money from the PodBuddy license fees to develop new products, and be able to spend maybe $20K on their next design off the backs of the PodBuddy sales.

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[jkabbe]

I agree. All of the major complaints about patents are missing from this story. This isn't about software. This isn't about a company patenting something and then sitting on the patent - they actually have a product that they sell (which uses the patented technology).

Where's the problem?

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because two things *do* the same thing doesn't mean they *are* the same thing. You could patent the cylendrical wheel, and I could make a spherical one. They'd both do the job (admittedly, mine would probably be worse), but my wheel is different enough from yours that you shouldn't be able to sue me.

Besides, these two complicated electrical devices and you're only looking at their on-the-surface functionality. Their actual electrical components and the means by which they combine and execute all the functions that they do could be completely different. i.e. I could take different roads down to my friend's house, and they could all be quite different, but I could still walk down them and reach my friend's house.

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[Anonymous Coward]

In response to your question, jkabbe, I believe the problem is that this is not a 'technology' that is patented at all. This is a specific use of technologies towards a certain end.

Let's count the technologies used in this patent: "An FM transmitter(1) and power supply/charging assembly electrically coupleable with an MP3(2) player(3, for hardware version)." After this point, no more technologies are mentioned, only the way they will be used. However, later on, in the Claims section, they mention firewire(4). It would be great if someone could do me the favor of pointing out which of these technologies was discovered by this company.

One interesting claim is made to when this assembly is used with "at least one indicator light indicative of the operational state of the unit." After reading that, look at the product itself. I see an LCD display, no indicator light.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
- that is the clause of the constitution which has led to the creation of patent laws, and it makes no mention WHATSOEVER as to the protection of specific USES of discoveries.

I cannot write a patent for using spoons as catapults, that is not a technology...
~nog_lorp

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[BillX]

Blatant copy or not, the "invention" is so obvious, it's almost impossible NOT to run afoul of the alleged patent claims. In fact, I did it yesterday. The whole reason I'm at the office on a sunday reading slashdot is (because it's bloody hot today in Boston, my office is air conditioned and my house isn't...but the other reason is...) because I just yesterday built a power/signal cradle for my Nomad Zen, and needed to scrounge the lab for some connectory bits I can use to fake a Pioneer IP-BUS connector.

Most likely, the only thing keeping me from being a damn dirty patent infringer today is that it's a Nomad, not an Ipod, and that I don't have to go through an FM transmitter. But when my friend brings her iRiver on a roadtrip with me next week and wants to plug it and her little (battery/USB powered) FM transmitter into my cradle's 5v power bus....

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[jkabbe]

You'll find that most things that are invented are simply innovative combinations of things that currently exist. Now, you're certainly capable of arguing that this particular combination was not innovative. I won't stand in your way :)

And, yes, if no one had made a catapult before, you could certainly take a few pieces of wood, a big rubber band, and a spoon and patent a catapult. It's an innovative combination of existing technology.

On the other hand, if someone had made catapults before but had used something slightly different from spoons, your use of spoons would not be innovative.

I have not read this particular patent so I can't render any opinion on whether it is innovative or not. But the mere fact that it was a piece of technology assembled from pre-existing parts in no way means it cannot be patented.

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[mavenguy]

You are, generally, correct with this; broadly, claims that are totally specified "functionally" are not permitted; however, elements of a combination claim are permitted under 35 USC 112:

...

An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof

A functional expression would typically be expressed as means for producing an audio output signal from a digital mp3 file. Traditionally when being prosecuted as an application the examiner could use a reference shpowing the functionality against this ( a broad reading of the "equivalents" in the statute) but, in court, a patent claim would be more narrowly construed ("Doctrine of Equivalents") (not sure if this has been modified vis a vis PTO prosecution, though).

Your example, however, is not what is meant by "functional" as used in patent law; "an arm-based digital media player mount with FM radio" is perfectly fine, functionality-wise, under 35 USC 112 (although I might quibble with the use of "with" as being indefinite and unclear).

Of course, this just defines the claimed scope of the invention; the broader the scope of coverage, the more prior art to which it would be vulnerable , but I don't want to get into the whole 102/103 and missed prior art issues here; plenty of fuel for that fire.

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear hear. There's plenty of patent abuse around (especially in software patents), but this doesn't appear to be one of 'em... one company patents the idea, the other company cries foul, because, well, they want to use the patented idea.

Patents aren't supposed to protect ideas. They're supposed to protect inventions.

What the hell is supposed to be the invention in this patent? The fact that this car widget holds an MP3 player instead of a practically identically sized and shaped car phone?

I guess all the other company needs to do is patent the same thing... on the Internet.

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[bprime]

Never mind licensing. What about competing products that are almost identical, and already on the market? The store that I'm working at right now offers this for sale for 100 CAD, and it's damn near identical.

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[HardCase]

The FM transmitter is detachable.

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[dfghjk]

...and furthermore, what's the dirty trick? Enforcing the patent is a pretty obvious thing to do under the circumstances. The patent system seems to be working as intended here.

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[Anonymous Coward]

patents have to be enforced by the holders. The reality is that this patent would more then likley not lose in court. The problem comes when you cant afford to challenge a patent because of legal costs. Such as this case.

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[DarthWiggle]

Did you CALI patent law or something? :)

I was confining myself to lay language, not writing a memo. My arm-based player example was meant as a statement that a simple description of the thing would (or should) not sufficiently describe the invention without more. Much more. And, further, that a lot of patents I see today are roughly equivalent to "trap mouse, let mouse die" for describing a "better" mousetrap.

Re: Isn't this what patents are for ?

[serutan]

What are patents really for? It's always an interesting question. The idea that patents were meant to protect innovators is an appealing one that goes well with the view of the Constitution as a We-the-People document, written by altruistic freedom fighters. But the writers of the Constitution were, for the most part, colonial aristocrats who owned large farms, businesses, and in many cases slaves. These were people who initially wanted to make George Washington a king. It seems to me that they would naturally believe the best way to encourage innovation is indirectly, by making it lucrative for investors who sponsor it. I grit my teeth typing this, but perhaps the idea of building intellectual property fiefdoms wouldn't be all that distasteful to the Founding Fathers. That certainly seems to be how the present-day Supreme Court sees it anyway.

Re:Isn't this what patents are for ?

[Anonymous Coward]

nice to see we get astroturfed by employees from the company threatening to sue.

Sorry, but there are at LEAST 1000 products on the market tthat fit this "patent", no they are not specific to an ipod, but specific to other brands of mp3 players... hell SONY makes one that looks damn near identical, why dont you guys have the balls to sue sony?

and this is not even covering the Absudity of the patent.

BFD!

[twinstead]

So what. In my mind, the general public is being spared another crappy, overpriced accessory from DVForge. Who cares!

Re:BFD!

[mrchaotica]

The issue of the patent, in principle, should be considered separately from the merits of the product, because the broken patent examiners affect all patents, not just this one.

Re:BFD!

[Reaperducer]

I almost agree.

What I don't understand is where's the "innovation" in the DV Forge product? It's essentially the same as the one from DLO. How is DLO squashing DV Forge's "innovation?" Maybe they're restricting DV Forge's "knock-off" but I don't see what DV Forge did that counts as unique or special to deserve not to be held accountable. Further, the submitter has not demonstrated that end users are being denied a "far more superior" product, because his product is essentially the same.

Sounds like a cry baby to me.

Maybe if the DV Forge product was demonstrably different or better they might have a case. But then, if they did they wouldn't be moaning on Slashdot.

Re:BFD!

[BackInIraq]

What I don't understand is where's the "innovation" in the DV Forge product? It's essentially the same as the one from DLO. How is DLO squashing DV Forge's "innovation?" Maybe they're restricting DV Forge's "knock-off" but I don't see what DV Forge did that counts as unique or special to deserve not to be held accountable.

I'd say mounting it to that pretty little arm-thing, along with not enclosing the iPod (reducing scratching) would be two innovations.

To put things in perspective, they're every bit as innovative as combining a car-charger, FM transmitter, and cheap plastic dock into one piece.

Mistrust but Verify

[TPIRman]

This smells fishy to me. DVForge CEO Jack Campbell has a long, sordid history of dealing in bad faith with the Mac community and being... casual with the truth. He's also a publicity whore and seems awfully prone to legal woes if you buy his endless "I'm such a victim" sob stories. I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth without independent verification, and since the only source offered by the OP is Jack's own site, well...

His spotty history is well-document in a MacInTouch special report. I'm not saying the story is false, but I'd seek verification.

Re:Mistrust but Verify

[Seumas]

He's also a publicity whore and seems awfully prone to legal woes if you buy his endless "I'm such a victim" sob stories.

So he's basically Steve Jobs' long lost twin.

(Recent Apple convert).

Re:Mistrust but Verify

[Altima(BoB)]

I was thinking it sounded a bit suspect when he said he offered DLO the rights to sell his product for the measly sum of the $20,000 he invested, then painting DLO as mean spirited when they refuse. I seems very reasonable to refuse to sell someone else's product through no means but a patent suit (it's not as if DLO bought them out or something.) And given the rather small fee Cambell was asking, it sounds like there may have been some other string attached... What if he wanted it to be sold as "Jack Cambell's PodBuddy?"

In any case, don't buy the martyr act on the "It gets worse" segment of that article.

Re:Mistrust but Verify

[The_Wilschon]

In Soviet Russia, Nintendo DS kills YOU!

In Soviet Russia, Joke funnier than YOU!

Re:Mistrust but Verify

[qengho]

DVForge CEO Jack Campbell has a long, sordid history of dealing in bad faith with the Mac community and being... casual with the truth.

He's also the jerk that offered a prize for writing a Mac virus. My heart bleeds for him...

Re:Mistrust but Verify

[ZeissIcon]

There's something else very fishy here. There are already a number of products on the market that do the same thing as both of these products: for example, as well as this.

IIRC, the condition of "prior art" will negate a patent, as will simply not defending a patent in court. Since the patent specifies "an MP3 player" and not "a 60 gig iPod Photo," products which do exactly the same thing for a shuffle or a mini should negate the patent strictly on the enforcemeent clause. By the way, I've bought one of each of these, and they both totally suck. The FM transmitters are basically useless. They do keep it charged, though.

Holy Grammar, batman!

[Xshare]

DLO (Digital Lifestyle Outfitters) are using their patent #6,591,085 to keep a PodBuddy, designed by DVForge, a product, competing with DLO's TransPod, off the market.
Wow.... I don't even think Yoda could pull that off. Great job, Slashdot!

Re:Holy Grammar, batman!

[patternjuggler]

DLO (Digital Lifestyle Outfitters) are using their patent #6,591,085 to keep a PodBuddy, designed by DVForge, a product, competing with DLO's TransPod, off the market.


I, a person, of natural birth, think, this use of commas, a form of punctuation, is ridiculous.

Maybe this is the asthmatic kid from Malcom in the Middle submitting the story...

Re:Holy Grammar, batman!

[mrchaotica]

That's not Yoda grammar, that's James T. Kirk grammar.

"...Podbuddy... designed by DVForge... a product... competing with DLO's Transpod... off the market"

Re:Holy Grammar, batman!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean; That Yoda could pull this off, I didn't think. Slashdot, Great job!

Nothing stopping them in Europe

[FidelCatsro]

Well for now and hopefully the future but that's a side point.
This is a US patent and the device could be sold in Europe and other regions , allowing the US fans of the Device to import it , perhaps it will cost a little more but its better than nothing.

Re:Nothing stopping them in Europe

[Halo1]

This is not about a software patent, and therefore has nothing to do with the current debate in Europe. It's just a known scammer whining about the fact that he's infringing on someone else's patent, and that the other party is exercising the rights it has as patent owner.

Re:Nothing stopping them in Europe

[Serious Simon]

Except for the European telecommunications regulations that don't allow operation of a broadcast band transmitter (no matter how low powered) without a license...

Re:Nothing stopping them in Europe

[FidelCatsro]

I had forgotten about that actually , i got mine from Poland (before it was an EU state , and I'm not even sure if the shop should have been selling it anyway but well no complaints here).
hm then i should remove the Europe part , but it still stays true for the other regions.

So they have a patent. Big deal.

[kc32]

Somebody should just invoke that Sherman Anti-Trust Act. They should be using that thing more now than ever.

Re:So they have a patent. Big deal.

[The_Wilschon]

Hey, there's an idea! Perhaps patents should simply be denied to monopolies/near monopolies. Of course, to really make it fair, you'd still have to have some sort of protection for the monopolies from people patenting the stuff that the monopoly does actually create and then suing them for it. Perhaps, monopolies should not be allowed to enforce their patents. Yeah, that's it.

What assholes.

[EvilStein]

"I want to let the many thousands of you who have contacted us since January about wanting a PodBuddy that I have asked Jeff Grady, the owner at DLO to produce the product for you. And, I have offered him all of our development work, prototypes, production tooling, intellectual property releases, several purchase orders we have here from national buyers, and, our entire list of email inquiries from folks like you. Our price to Jeff?... the $23,000 we have invested in just the hard injection mold tooling. His answer?... No way. He is not interested."

So, he said "Ok, then you make the product, since you've got the patent for it.." and they said "No, not interested."

The patent system allows patents for products that you have *no interest* in producing.

Our patent system sucks, that's for sure.

But, maybe DLO isn't interested because they already make a similar product. I didn't see that mentioned in the dvforge article..

"DLO TransPod FM
All-In-One Car Solution - Silver Edition
Item #: w009-2002s

Price: $99.99

The DLO TransPod is the only car accessory an iPod owner will ever need. Now in Silver"

Re:What assholes.

[Seumas]

Because they already own the patent and are already producing the item they have a patent on. Why should they pay $23,000 to DVForge to buy the plans and designs for the product they themselves already design and produce? It doesn't take a genius to stick an LCD display and an articulated arm with a charger at the end on it.

Re:What assholes.

[BackInIraq]

It doesn't take a genius to stick an LCD display and an articulated arm with a charger at the end on it.

Which is exactly why I hate patents like these.

Re:What assholes.

[LurkerXXX]

Why should they pay $23,000 to DVForge to buy the plans and designs for the product they themselves already design and produce?

But this one goes to 11!

Re:What assholes.

[Haeleth]

But, maybe DLO isn't interested because they already make a similar product. I didn't see that mentioned in the dvforge article..

I can only deduce you didn't read the DVForge article, then, because the TransPod is mentioned directly by name no fewer than three times in it, including in the very first sentence.

Re:What assholes.

[EvilStein]

Oh, I read the article. I meant that DVforge is acting surprised that they're getting hit with a patent claim, but they're well aware of the competition's product. I didn't see the idea of dvforge actually admitting that DLO might be kind of right here, just them complaining that they have to kill a product because it's already patented.

Unfortunately for them...

[Anonymous Coward]

Their patent application infringes on my patented way of inducing sleep in children with a text containing over 100 consecutive words without a period.

Re:Unfortunately for them...

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Their patent application infringes on my patented way of inducing sleep in children with a text containing over 100 consecutive words without a period.

Your patent is invalid due to prior art.

Re:Unfortunately for them...

[Anonymous Coward]

You cite Faulkner no thats not right you should cite Joyce for gods sake James Joyce you know the Irish guy famous chap really wrote Ulysses and Finnegans Wake now Ulysses is a great example of loads of words with very little punctuation in fact the final section whats it called now oh yes Penelope right well thats about fifty pages long and all of its just two sentences no other punctuation just two periods in fifty pages and I never met anyone who read it all every word not even pretentious literature students so did Faulkner really beat that I wonder probably not no I really doubt it no I say no no

Re:Unfortunately for them...

[arodland]

I dunno, Absalom, Absalom! is pretty close. It's got some of the longest sentences recorded in modern English. No real shortage of punctuation, just sentences that change direction five different times before they get back to the original point -- if ever. See for example the first sentence:

From a little after two o'clock until almost sundown of the long still hot weary dead September afternoon they sat in what Miss Coldfield still called the office because her father had called it that -- a dim hot airless room with the blinds all closed and fastened for forty-three summers because when she was a girl someone had believed that light and moving air carried heat and that dark was always cooler, and which (as the sun shone fuller and fuller on that side of the house) became latticed with yellow slashes full of dust motes which Quentin thought of as being flecks of the dead old dried paint itself blown inward from the scaling blinds as wind might have blown them.

So let's email him

[TheWGP]

So let's email this Jeff Grady - public courtesy is nice (and lawsuit-avoiding) on commercial webpages such as PodBuddy's, but this is slashdot ;) Forget the company box :P

DLO already makes this product.

[EvilStein]

Damn it, I didn't hit "Preview" first on my other post. Anyway, it appears that DLO/everythingipod already makes a *very* similiar product.

It appears that DVforge is making (or not making) a nearly identical product.

"DLO TransPod FM
All-In-One Car Solution - Silver Edition
Item #: w009-2002s

Price: $99.99

The DLO TransPod is the only car accessory an iPod owner will ever need. Now in Silver"

Best ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is clearly the best invention since The Neuron Drive!

Duking it out in court

[Nick Driver]

Then again, if the DVForge guys thought they had a chance, I would think they'd push it in court (they could always recover the costs, right?). So they must feel they are actually on shaky ground, too.

Umm, if you don't the money up front to fund the court fight, you're screwed already.

Re:Duking it out in court

[SeventyBang]

There are attorneys who are willing to fight the good fight when they know they have the right case and don't demand everyone's first-born sons. They may not be plentiful, but they do exist.

Create a portable which plays everything except MP3 would clearly not violate the patent. Unfortunately, the "everything except MP3" market isn't very big and I don't think you're going to suddenly see a shift in everyone's tastes unless something dramatic changes.

Patents in perspective

[ravenspear]

Another example where patents are interfering with innovation and in the end - the end users are suffering the consequences, because far more superior product can't see the light due to dirty tricks of the patent owners

I must take issue with this.

This description is exactly what patents were designed to do, protect the original product from imitators that intrude on its market position. Regardless of how you feel about software patents, in this case the patent concerns an actual product. So I would disagree with your logic of this being "another example" assuming you are referring to the previous patents covered on Slashdot almost all of which were software related. This is a different scenario, and one where I think patents are useful and necessary. Which brings me to my next point.

Whether this harms consumers is another issue. I would say it does and it doesn't. It does in the sense that if PodBuddy is indeed a superior product they will of course not be able to buy it and will have to settle for the inferior original. However, it benefits consumers in another way. That is, if we had no patent system and anyone could produce anything they wanted without restriction you may not have been able to buy either product. If the makers of TransPod had not had the incentive of a patent in developing their product, it may never have been developed and PodBuddy would not have been made to one up it.

Patents are a useful tool in protecting legitamite inventions and they do serve to create innovation there. Of course, whether TransPod qualifies as a legitimate invention is another matter entirely which I haven't touched on. But the point is don't just respond with a knee jerk reaction to any story about someone utilizing a patent with the assumption that they are a greedy monopolist, or patents in general are necessarily bad, etc.

Re:Patents in perspective

[mad.frog]

Absolutely. I'd mod you up if I hadn't already commented on this thread. Patents are getting a bad rap on /. and the like lately... and while it's certainly true that there are patent abuses (especially in the software area), this doesn't look like one to me.

And I'll agree with the earlier posters: let's at least *try* to keep the editorializing out of the original posting, m'kay?

Re:Patents in perspective

[nelziq]

That is, if we had no patent system and anyone could produce anything they wanted without restriction you may not have been able to buy either product.

So far as I know, this is a broadly held but entirely baseless assumption. There is no empirical research showing that patent protection causes more innovation being available to the consumer. See http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/again st.htm for a more complete treatment.

Re:Patents in perspective

[wfberg]

This description is exactly what patents were designed to do, protect the original product from imitators that intrude on its market position.

No they're not designed to protect original products. They're designed to provide incentives in the form of a temporary monopoly to researchers who disclose their inventions 'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts'.

You'd know that if you had even had the slightest cursory look at patent law; it's basis in the US Constitution.

Re:Patents in perspective

[ravenspear]

That's why I said "may not have been able to." I don't know if it has been scientifically proven but it is generally agreed upon by a majority of economists that it does promote innovation in some sense (not referring to software patents).

Re:Patents in perspective

[Arker]

I think you're wrong. The purported purpose of patents would be to promote the arts and sciences by granting a limited time monopoly in exchange for important disclosures.

The patent application makes no disclosures that advance the state of the art that I can see. And anytime you have a completely independent invention (which this seems to be) forced off the market by a patent holder, the purpose patents are supposed to serve is clearly not being served.

Re:Patents in perspective

[shutdown -p now]

But the point is don't just respond with a knee jerk reaction to any story about someone utilizing a patent with the assumption that they are a greedy monopolist, or patents in general are necessarily bad, etc.

IMO, there were enough past cases to clearly demonstrate that patents in general are indeed bad. Definitely enough to me to invoke the "knee-jerk reaction" described above by default.

Re:Patents in perspective

[ravenspear]

Again though, if you are referring to the ones on /. almost all of those have dealt with software patents. I just don't think analyzing that one category can give you enough information to determine if patents are good or bad in the general case. It certainly demonstrates one of the ways they can not be helpful, but that may not be sufficient cause to pass final judgement on all patents.

Re:Patents in perspective

[mavenguy]

[aol metoo]

I agree

[/aol metoo]

I think there is an additional consideration which needs to be considered here. It is not uncommon for one inventor, say, A, to create and get the a broad, pioneer patent in some field. They subsequently produce one or more products, which, du to being an early implementation, works, but doesn't work well enough to be commercially viable.

Meanwhile, competitor B comes up with another product which is clearly superior to A's product, but is covered by A's patent, so they can't make or sell it without A's permission. If the differences that make B's product are unobvious over A's invention (and B hasn't delayed to where a stautory bar would apply to B) B can file and obtain a B on the "improved" product. Now, if A wants to sell a better version of his product he either has to come up with improvements that don't infringe on B's patent, or A has to make a deal with B, which often will involve cross licensing the two patents or one selling out to the other.

If A follows the former course of action, and then patents that, this is called "patenting around" (which B could also do by comming up with and patenting something that totally avoids A's original patent). This is often touted by pro- patent people as encouraging additional innovation. Of course it doesn't guarantee such an outcome, since it assumes good, rational "business sense", which in not so few cases, is lacking.

Re:Patents in perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether this harms consumers is another issue. I would say it does and it doesn't. It does in the sense that if PodBuddy is indeed a superior product they will of course not be able to buy it and will have to settle for the inferior original.

Really?

If the PodBuddy is a superior product, then the patent holder merely has to 1) copy the desirable features and/or 2) license the patent to the PodBuddy manufacturers and gain a slice of the profits. Either way, consumers get what they want (a better product) and the patent holder gets what they want (revenue).

Re:Patents in perspective

[Mac Degger]

"If the makers of TransPod had not had the incentive of a patent in developing their product, it may never have been developed"

And I think this is bollox: Transpod;s makers would have still made the product, because they think there's a market for their product, and that it would sell, and in doing so make them money. Having a patent would do nothing to disturb or promote that. The market in unpattantables (like caps, shoes, clothing, umbrella's, cars, cpu's, bookcases etc etc etc) proves this.
And it's worse than that: I as a consumer have a near infinite variety of shoes or tables to choose from. These products are all unpatented (on the whole, unless we're talking about a new chair with a revolutionary new adjustment mechanism [in which case it is only that implementation of that specific adjustment mechanism which is patented])...and they sell so well that the owner of IKEA is the richest man on earth.

Re:Patents in perspective

[Kanasta]

Just wait 17 yrs (or is it more now?)
the patent will expire, then we will ALL benefit from this new advance.

Re:Patents in perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

And why does it promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts????

Well because it offers protection in the form of a temporary monopoly. Really, it's not that hard to see. You even said it yourself. The incentive that the patent system uses is protection so that you can make money. Sure the OP may have not had the best wording but anyone with some commonsense understood what he meant by it.

So you trying to use legal speak to undermine his argument is pretty pointless. He still has a valid argument and you proved to have about zero insightfulness. Think before you post. Just because someone's opinion doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean you should simply bash him or her because they didn't use proper legal terms or the official definition.

He brings up several good points and is very reasonable. I see no real flaw with his post, as all of it is self-explanatory. You may know the "real" purpose of it but by giving it a quick look over you will realize that his and the "real" purpose are very close. Remember laws are not rules and are therefore dependant on the interpretation of the law. In this case his interpretation is valid for the issue at hand. That issue is patent infringement by Podbuddy. In another case one could use a different interpretation that better represents the issues under consideration.

Any one with basic knowledge in law is aware that laws are written as such so that they may encompass as many variables and situations as possible. Since things change laws must be written this way. For this situation, podbuddy is infringing on a patent that was issued to the manufacturer of the original product. Now if it is or is not the original product is not the issue. The patent system in this case is protecting the believed original manufacturer and inventor from competition.

See does that make it easier for you to understand. See how his interpretation of the patent system holds up in this circumstance?

Get rid of patents

[John Seminal]

We have been informed by DLO that they consider our PodBuddy to be an infringement of their company's U.S. patent #6,591,085, and, that they will file suit against us, if we launch the PodBuddy.

We disagree with DLO's claim, and, we believe that our PodBuddy is so utterly different from their company's TransPod product that there can be no question of infringement. But, we are not able to fund the sort of protracted legal battle that would be required to prove our point in court. So, we are forced to kill the PodBuddy.

So a small company has a product, gets a letter threatening a lawsuit, and they fold because they can not afford a lawyer?

I sure hope Walmart never takes this approach.

Come to think of it, I wish they did. They should have patented the mail in rebate.

I want to let the many thousands of you who have contacted us since January about wanting a PodBuddy that I have asked Jeff Grady, the owner at DLO to produce the product for you. And, I have offered him all of our development work, prototypes, production tooling, intellectual property releases, several purchase orders we have here from national buyers, and, our entire list of email inquiries from folks like you. Our price to Jeff?... the $23,000 we have invested in just the hard injection mold tooling. His answer?... No way. He is not interested.

What? He can't sell his product, so he wants to sell his email addresses.

My statement to Jeff was that the PodBuddy would likely sell about five times as many units as his TransPod. And, that, if we can't build it, then he should build it. After all, he's the one using a patent to keep a better, more desirable competitive product off the market.

Now this is where I would like to hear from a lawyer. What if I have an idea. I have no plans to make this idea come to market, but I have an idea. Can I patent it and sit on it, like some people who buy websites and force a third party to pay a huge fee to buy it?

And what about ideas that would naturally come to everyones mind? What if someone patented air conditioning in cars as blowing cold air? Or if someone patented cordless phones? There seems to be so many things which could be patented, then we would have only one choice in the market. Didn't the Sherman Act pass to stop these kinds of things from happening?

It seems to me the more wording lawyers add to make patentes less prohibitive, the more prohibitive they get because only a lawyer will be able to support or defend a claim. We should just do away with patents all together. Let anyone who can build a product. Let the best product, the best priced product, and the one with most quality win. I bet the original will still gain market share for being first. After that they will have to compete. What is wrong with that??

Re:Get rid of patents

[mathkicks]

You can just sit on a patent if you have no plans to introduce a product, but that normally won't benefit you. One thing that patents are good for is being licensed to other parties. It would be a very bad business decision to not license a patent if you didn't plan to produce a product based on the patent.

Re:Get rid of patents

[slashkitty]

Our JamPlug products are patent-pending implementations of a clever, but very simple idea: one musician, one instrument, one connection. The JamPlug mission is to create tiny, convenient products that interconnect one instrument, one microphone, one channel of sound. And, the growing family of JamPlug products presented here is a good look at the direction that we are headed with this brand.

So it looks like DVForge is patenting their other ideas. It means they know about patents and can afford the lawyers. I'm guessing they were dumb and didn't patent this device and are now must trying to get some publicity.

Re:Get rid of patents

[sabinm]

Yes! I have it. Let me hire 25 engineers and 100 production workers. Let me hire support staff administrative staff and executive staff. Let me develop retirement accounts, health care, contracts with local and international distributors. Let me develop a product based on years of dreaming designing, redesigning and then final painstaking implementation! Oh, and let there not be any protection for my massive investment. Let me get all the way to a week until a release date. Then let a larger corporation with manufacturing plants in some labor cheap country come to market 2 weeks before me with a self described "exact duplicate of $manufacturer's product"!

That's scads better than having patents!

1. Develop a life changing prodcut with your own genius, capital and sacrifice
2. Don't patent it out of philisophical reasons.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!

Re:Get rid of patents

[Theaetetus]

"My statement to Jeff was that the PodBuddy would likely sell about five times as many units as his TransPod. And, that, if we can't build it, then he should build it. After all, he's the one using a patent to keep a better, more desirable competitive product off the market."

Now this is where I would like to hear from a lawyer. What if I have an idea. I have no plans to make this idea come to market, but I have an idea. Can I patent it and sit on it, like some people who buy websites and force a third party to pay a huge fee to buy it?

Not a lawyer, but the quote from the article above is intentionally misleading. He's implying (and it appears to have fooled you) that DLO patented this item, and then is just sitting on the patent, and not manufacturing anything.
Thing is, DLO is manufacturing and selling the TransPod. DLO holds the patent, they're using the patent, and this guy makes what seems to be a copycat product (it's slightly different, being cable-mount rather than a cradle, and I'm not a patent lawyer, but they seem to be quite close in design and function) and wants to be paid for his implementation idea of their patent.

Now, they have the option of paying him and licensing his idea, or not paying him and not using it. But it's not like they're preventing us iPod owners from having any implementation of this patent.

Last Ditch Effort

[Adrilla]

DLO seems to be acting like true dicks in this matter, the people are basically giving the design away to let DLO produce and they still gave DVForge the cold shoulder. A last ditch effort might include proposing a sub-contracting deal with DLO; Basically DVForge can build and sell and probably even market the product themselves, but put it under the DLO brand name and the two parties could split revenue. I know the idea sounds like DVF is getting the shaft, but they seem like they're much much more interested in getting the product out to the market than making money. This way DLO doesn't have to do much, if any work and spend little to no money on the product but bring in basically, free revenue. If the product is as good as the DVF guys say it is, then DVF can recoup their R&D funds, plus some (depending on the percentage of returns they get). I'm not even sure if DLO will accept the proposal, but the DV guys seem like they're at the point of desperate measures, and this is something they should at least ask about if they have that much faith in their product and really want it on the market that bad.

Extreme last ditch tactic. Rename it "The Star Trek Ipod holder", then complain how "DLO is cancelling our product" and tell them you don't have the funds for a lawsuit and let the Trekkers shell out money for your legal defense.

Re:Last Ditch Effort

[gabebear]

What is so much better about the PodBuddy that DLO would want to invest $23,000 + the cost of starting a new production line for it. I think Jack Campbell(DVForge) is being unrealistic here. He didn't bother to do any research in his only competition before investing in creating a nearly identical product.

From the article: "have offered him[DOL's CEO] all of our development work, prototypes, production tooling, intellectual property releases, several purchase orders we have here from national buyers, and, our entire list of email inquiries from folks like you. Our price to Jeff?... the $23,000 we have invested in just the hard injection mold tooling."

Jack Campbell admitted he was trying to sell our email addresses!! If anyone is asking for more lawsuits it's DVForge.

DLO Transpod FM exists.

[asdfasdfasdfasdf]

The DLO Transpod FM is available today, and it looks a whole lot like the iPod buddy. Sure, theres also has the fancy mounting device, but the rest of it looks like a direct rip of the Transpod-- right down to the LCD display with the FM frequency.

I think this is a situation where the patent system works. The guy has prior art and a patent, what more could you want? The podbuddy people are free to patent a device that attaches an ipod to a cigarette lighter which is used as the anchor-- and they would probably be granted the patent. Then, it's up to them to license the technology if the patent owner allows it, or STFU.

This guy is a whiner, and leave it to Timothy to come up with yet another unresearched, POS article.

I hope that guy doesn't get paid.

Re:DLO Transpod FM exists.

[Anonymous Coward]

The transpod is a bulky piece of shit that has creaky plastic and a horrible FM transmitter. It surrounds your ipod on three sides with up to an inch of plastic, and scratches the hell out of it when you can successfully use the sticky "eject" mechanism.

I'd welcome a competing product.

Re:DLO Transpod FM exists.

[Neoncow]

Some interesting commentary indeed. Maybe DVForge should patent a method that prevents an iPod from being scratched while being docked. Specifically, the would patent that rubber bulb at the back and they could somehow patent the 'innovative' uncovered ipod design. I am not a patent laywer and I'll bet that this is infeasable. Anyone (who knows the law) know why this is infeasable?

Selective enforcement

[CODiNE]

I recently bought one of these babies :
http://www.tristatecamera.com/LookAtAll-4g7uwbnl-C TAIPCAK-4-0054-0-store.php.html
For my wife's iPod Mini... works great, was really cheap, and seems to be pretty similar to what's being blocked right now. I haven't seen the TransPods patent info yet, but is this one allowed since it doesn't sit on a movable tube or is that patent simply for all FM cigarette adaptor chargers? There's GOTTA be prior art on this, if they explicitly patented the idea of an iPod car charger with an FM tuner I can image Apple getting pretty pissed since they want as many iPod compatible products as possible. Yeah, I'd complain to Apple and they'd probably have a nice little chat with DLO about this.

Ever heard of a patent search?

[grqb]

This is what patents are for! Everybody in their right mind knows that they should be doing a patent search before coming up with a technology like this. The patent was filed on July 17 2002, it's DVForge's own fault.

Re:Ever heard of a patent search?

[jkabbe]

Although I should add that a patent application usually does not become public until 18 months after it was filed. Still, that gave them the first half of 2005 to find out about this.

Re:Ever heard of a patent search?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. If you produce a product that infringes upon a patent, you will be held liable for much more damages if you knew about the patent in the first place. Thus, it would make sense for someone in their right mind -not- to do a patent search. Let the patent holders come find you, not the other way around.

There are so many patents, it seems highly likely that anything you want to produce will infringe upon -someone's- patent. That patent holder may not have any interest in prohibiting your product though. For example, say someone like Motorola holds a patent on an interface converter for car accessories. They only use the patent for making cell phone adapters for cars, but they are so early in the market that they were able to get a patent that broadly covers all car interface converters. If you make a device that converts analog audio to FM radio so that an iPod can be interfaced to a car radio, Motorola may not even care to prohibit your product because it does nothing to hurt their own products marketshare, even though you are infringing their patent.

2. This patent was filed on 07-17-2002, but that doesn't mean that it was available for the public to read on that date. Usually it is several months after the filing date that a patent application becomes available for public viewing. Even then, who knows if the patent will actually be granted?

For an example, check out patent application 10/316,961. It was filed on 12-11-2002, but has an earliest publication date of 11-20-2003. Also, check out the Continuity Data, and you'll see a recently filed patent application, 11/071,667 on 03-03-2005, but you can not view patent application 11/071,667 at this time.

Re:Ever heard of a patent search?

[Anonymous Coward]

...a patent application usually does not become public until [XX] months after it was filed...

This is a part of the patent system that is broken, clearly broken, and should be fixed. The moment a patent application is in the form that will be considered by an examiner (even if that examiner may send it back), that application should be published. No if's, and's, or but's. You want to apply for a patent, your idea, original or not, should not be kept secret.

Re:Ever heard of a patent search?

[shutdown -p now]

Everybody in their right mind knows that they should be doing a patent search before coming up with a technology like this.

I would contest that. Doing a patent search for every single thing you make is simply unrealistic, both in terms of cost and time required. Even large corporations don't seem to have enough resources for that - big guys like IBM and Microsoft are found infringing some obscure parent quite often. And you expect a relatively small company to be able to do that?

Re:Ever heard of a patent search?

[everphilski]

Obscure patents, yes.
Directly infringind a patent that covers the basic premise of one of your product lines? No.
-everphilski-

How about... (ba dump, bump)

[Anonymous Coward]

... starting your own site if you don't like the way this one works?

Slashdot: "It's not even patented!"

But how long?

[John Seminal]

If I have an idea for a device that hasn't been made before, I can patent the idea then openly market it without fear that someone else will come along and out-muscle me in the marketplace.

If you trully have an idea nobody else has thought of, how long will you have market share? Say you make a device that makes cars run off water. People put water in your device, and gasoline comes out of the other side. Forget about the fact that it is not possible, but you make a machine that pulls gasoline out of water and the air. You will make billions of dollars.

Now, it will take other companies months and months just to figure out how your machine works. It will take them months to manufacture the first prototype. You should have at least six months in the marketplace without competition.

What good are patents for? With gas prices at over 2 bucks a gallon, your device could sell for a high price, all profit. What reason do you have to offer your product at walmart prices, and with a low per unit profit?

But if 10 companies come out in 6 months to 1 year, all making the same product, the market benifits. You, the original inventor, you must get lean. You must either convince people your product is better in some way, or you have to price it in accordance with competition.

Since you were first, you will have built a name. You will have an advantage like that of an incumbant in office. You have an advantage, you don't need any more.

There is another benifit to society. If you make your money in a year, then the competition gets too great and you are forced out, you can go back to the drawing board. You had one very good year where you made lots of money. Now you can sit on that money and drink wine and travel, or you can go back to the drawing board and develop something else. But why should the law let you whord your idea, and exists for no other reason that to defend it?

On the worst case scenereo, you don't even have any products, you just purchase a ton of patents and sue people. Say you are microsoft, you buy patents you can later use to stop companies from offering products.

We need to get rid of patents.

Re:But how long?

[Otter]

Except for the one year term (which you have decreed to be optimal without providing a shred of evidence as to why), what you said is precisely how patents work.

Re:But how long?

[chochos]

You are describing the way patents work (or are supposed to work). The idea is to be able to protect the little guy when he has a great idea like the one you describe. In this case maybe the guy will have the idea and the way to build a prototype, but not the means to build it in massive quantities. So another company comes in, one of the big guys, who can build it in massive quantities. If patents didn't exist, they would just copy the design and build the device and sell it and the little guy would get nothing. With patents, the big company has to license the patent from the little guy, so for every device the big company sells, the little guy gets some money.
The problem that patents are causing lately hasn't been because of the idea of patents itself, but rather the enforcement of patents: you shouldn't be able to patent something if you don't even show a prototype or try to build one or prove that it works or can works, should you? because then a lot of people can just patent ideas and wait for someone to try and come up with something similar.
Another problem is that the PTO is granting patents left and right without checking them. The guy who patented the wheel is a clear example. And lots of bullshit patents are granted that way. The PTO is just granting any patents that anyone requests and they're letting the people fight it out in court, if you have prior art, or a previous patent or can prove that the idea is too simple or obvious to patent or whatever.
Software patents, however, are a different matter altogether. I DO think those are bad from the get go. But for tangible stuff, like the product that is the subject of this slashdot story, or any inventions like the one you suggest, I think patents are a good way to protect the inventor (when they really invent the thing they're patenting, obviously).

Re:But how long?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if 10 companies come out in 6 months to 1 year, all making the same product, the market benifits. You, the original inventor, you must get lean.

Yes, the individual's profit must be sacrificed for the good of the market.

Re:But how long?

[ultranova]

Now, it will take other companies months and months just to figure out how your machine works.

The idea of patents is that you can tell everyone how it works, without losing this edge. That way, when you die, the secret doesn't die with you. If the technology is truly new - like your example of water-to-oil converter - it might be quite difficult to reverse engineer it, especially since the inventor is likely to make it as difficult as possible, in order to keep his monopoly as long as possible.

That is the purpose of patents - to give inventors incentive to release their findings instead of keeping them secret. Not to give incentive to innovate - people could innovate and profit from their innovations just fine without patents, but it would require keeping the workings of your device a trade secret.

Patents exist to prevent inventions from dying with their inventors. Any patent that doesn't give detailed instructions of how to build whatever is being patented is an abhorrent abysmal abominable aberration.

Patent "meta-moderation" system: a horrible idea.

[CyricZ]

Notice how poorly the metamoderation system works here. It is every so often abused by collusion on behalf of groups like the GNAA and others. They gang together to corrupt the system. That is surely what will happen to such a system involving patents rather than Slashdot postings. Not only that, but such peer review will lead to patent infringery. The reviewers, especially if professionals of the trade, will proceed to incorporate the innovations described by their patents into their products, and then will reject the patent so as to avoid being liable for patent infringery!

I own a TransPod...

[Dr. Zowie]

... and, for what it's worth, it works great. I find the patent pretty dodgy (how is this fundamentally different than a CD holder with built-in FM transmitter?) but it is a good product. Works a darn sight better than the iTrip I used to own, which worked only slightly better than a small, white turd.

Patents might be good, but...

[dniq]

...not in the USA. The patent mentioned is not a brainer, in my opinion. Besides DVForge guys offered DLO to manufacture and sell PodBuddy, but they refused. Personally I fail to understand this. And my opinion about the products themselves: I think that PodBuddy is FAR much better than "TransPod", which looks like a soap box to me.

An RCA cord connection gives FAR better sound

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize that the point of this article was problems with the patent system,
but it should not be overlooked that virtually
all FM transmitters for iPod cannot provide sound quality which
compares to using an RCA cord to connect the iPod to the car stereo.

Aiwa sells a head unit which has a "line-in" on the front panel.
Alpine sells an optional accessory cord which will allow RCA
inputs to be added to their units. By this time, other car stereo
makers probably do as well. Radio Shack sells several cords which will work. What's required is a mini-stereo make plug for connecting to the iPod, and the appropriate plugs on the other end of the cord ( in the case of the Aiwa unit, the cord should have mini-stereo plugs on both ends, but the Alpine requires
RCA male terminals on the other end of the cord ).

If sound quality matters, connecting the iPod to the car stereo with a cable is the far better choice.

You suckers

[LandownEyes]

I was born with two, yes two appendages that can both hold AND control my mp3 player!!! That's prior art right? Now if only my fingers could broadcast fm...

MP3 player?

[tigertiger]

Reading the independent claims in the patent, they are not only blatantly obvious, but only refer to MP3 players. DVForge should simply get a patent covering application of this method to other audio players, then they can prevent DLO from making such a device...

Or they can simply split the FM receiver from the docking unit.

This is ridiculous. To me it looks more and more that these patents are only filed by people completely ignorant. If this had been intentional, they would not have used the word "MP3 player" - they probably did not know what MP3 was. So the nice thing about the patent system now is that it encourages ignorance.

Re:MP3 player?

[bhtooefr]

Well, since the MP3 playing is a secondary function of the iPod (it's an AAC player that happens to play MP3s), they could fight it... However, it's the traditional big-business-wants-the-little-guy-out-so-they-sue- them-so-that-they-shrivel-up-because-of-legal-fees game. Microsoft's played it with Digital Research in a way - they did something that they knew would get them sued (have Windows 3.1 refuse to run on DR-DOS, and not for technical reasons). DR won the case, but the legal fees drove them under.

Re:MP3 player?

[Anonymous Coward]

DVForge should simply get a patent covering application of this method to other audio players, then they can prevent DLO from making such a device...

They can't really do that. DLO is already making a device, if DVForge files for a patent today, DLO's existing device is prior art to the patent being filed today. DVForge would have to show that they had invented it prior to DLO (through inventors journal dates, etc), and since they don't seem to be able to do that against DLO's existing patent, they probably can't do that on this theoretical patent either.

Re:MP3 player?

[Spy der Mann]

DR won the case, but the legal fees drove them under.

Shouldn't there be a law where the losing side, if it happens to be a megacorporation, would pay the legal expenses for the small parties if they won?

Re:MP3 player?

[despisethesun]

There should be a law where whoever the losing side is, they pay the legal expenses of the winner. It would probably end the majority of frivolous lawsuits.

Re:MP3 player?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats an odd comment... since the iPod was an MP3 player first. AAC came later.

Re:MP3 player?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to Canada

Jack Campbell

[ravenspear]

His spotty history is well-document in a MacInTouch special report.

Actually there was an entire website started just to inform people of his machinations.

I want

[Seiruu]

a patent on patenting. And if that exists then I want a patent on patenting patents. And if that exists then I want a patent on that.

Re:Patent "meta-moderation" system: a horrible ide

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Well, but remember, such a system applied at the USPTO wouldn't have to be the same. Here, any old cretin can metamoderate (any old cretin can moderate too, in fact) since the system is entirely automatic.

At the USPTO, they could implement a system where one or two persons max. per company, or per consumer lobbying group, can be registered as spokesperson for their own interest group. These people can then act as the counterweight the office needs. The USPTO would also have to review the criticism these guys form, and balance them against the opinion of the initial patent reviewer, to determine whether it is judicious to revoke a patent. Finally, there could be a rule that people who file too many appeals, just to serve their own interest, will be dismissed for unfairness.

I mean, whatever the system can be, but surely not exactly like Slashdot :-) What I really meant is, the USPTO should tap into the resources of real professionals who know their trades to counteract the sole opinion of reviewers who, as we all know, don't always know everything and often grant patents at random.

Patent system doing its job

[TravisW]

Issues of the requirement of nonobviousness aside... If the PodBuddy is very similar to the original product, then the original is not "inferior" (design considerations aside), and the patent system is doing its job. It the PodBuddy is self-evidently superior, then the difference in functionality should prevent it from being covered by the patent. Again, the patent system is doing its job.

Re:Patent system doing its job

[fishbowl]

So quality is intrinsically bound to implementation?

It's possible for the patent holder's execution to be at poor tolerances with limited quality control, while the infringer's product could be far better.

This could even become a safety and health concern, given the right kind of product. Say a medical device is made to poor standards by a patent holder. A competitor infringes on the patent, but makes a safer product. What's more important? Life&death&safety, or patent rights?

Re:Patent system doing its job

[tigertiger]

No it's not. It's not designed to protect products, but inventions. The "nonobviousness" is central to it. It is not a "I called it first". Ask yourself the question: Could I have come up with the design of an iPod bay with an FM transmitter attached?

If you (or, in fact, any specialist in the field) could have come up with this design, it cannot be patented. It doesn't matter whether somebody actually thought of it (this is prior art and another matter). Non-obviousness means that a specialist in the field would have to invest serious effort in the invention. And in most inventions these are the little details, not the general idea (think of computer tomographs - the idea is simple, but the actual implementation, that is protected by patents, depends on many specifics that are non-obvious).

Re:Patent system doing its job

[bogie]

If that's the case then the Ipod accessory market is ripe for lawsuits. Tons of Car chargers that look the same, lots of blue and clear "Thin" ipod cases, earbuds etc. Christ 90% of Ipod accessories are copies of another product out there. I could spend the rest of my life listing products that look and function the same in the ipod world.

Beyond the fact that the podbuddy has an extension arm and an lcd screen, I just don't see it as a ripoff. Bogus patent enforcement IMHO.

Oh btw some of DLO's cases suck ass. Don't buy them unless you want the front of your ipod completely scratched up. Perhaps we should make sure that none of their cases look like anything else on the market?

Anyway you can see how I feel. And I'll give you one guess who will never see dollar one of my money. You suck DLO.

Re:Patent system doing its job

[everphilski]

Medical devices are a completely different realm, handled by the Food and Drug Administration. Completely different process.
But back in the real world... yea, whoever comes up with the idea, gets the right to see it through. Isn't that only right?
-everphilski-

Re:Patent "meta-moderation" system: a horrible ide

[CyricZ]

It's a noble idea, I will give you that. However, it sounds far too complicated to work well. Many of the problems with the patent system are due to the fact that it's a complicated beast. Complicating such a system even more will only result in further exploitation of the inherent flaws.

How is it *very* similar?

[attemptedgoalie]

They have similar functions.

One looks like a piece of shit sticking out of your dash, at inconvient lengths and angles.

The other one is sheer beauty, articulate, allows for a skin or small protective case to still be on your ipod.

The DLO is a hunk o' shit.

Re:How is it *very* similar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but do they both do the functionality covered by the patent? This isn't a design patent. So your comment is pointless.

Am I missing something...

[MAdMaxOr]

or does the patent seem to emphasize that the mount takes place in a "cavity." All potential puns aside, the PodBuddy does not has said cavity, from which all other claims derive. It should be open and shut.

Notable quote

[Mr_Icon]

"Anyone who would *not* lie to protect their business from an attacking competitor is suspect in my mind" ~ Jack Campbell (of DVForge)

(taken from http://www.jackwhispers.com/catchIV.html)

Ppodbuddy probably doesnt exist.

[Chmarr]

Knowing John Carpenter, the podbuddy probably doesnt exist, or perhaps work properly, or is of really low quality (like those horrible, horrible MacMice) and John's probably trying to find a way to pass the blame onto something other than his company's incompetance.

Re:Ppodbuddy probably doesnt exist.

[BillX]

Actually, knowing John Carpenter, it's probably based on some bizarre and not-well-understood alien technology, and will ultimately sprout limbs and forcibly impregnate itself into the hapless driver...

Re:Ppodbuddy probably doesnt exist.

[Chmarr]

John... jack... all the same :)

Re:Patent "meta-moderation" system: a horrible ide

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

It's a noble idea, I will give you that. However, it sounds far too complicated to work well.

Well, I'm just some Slashdotter and it's just some vague idea I have :-)

Many of the problems with the patent system are due to the fact that it's a complicated beast. Complicating such a system even more will only result in further exploitation of the inherent flaws.

The patent system is perhaps too complex, yes. But I don't think that's what prevents it from performing its function. I think the main problem is that the number of applications, and their growing complexities (due to the advances in the modern world) put way too much pressure on the reviewers: they're too few, and their fields are too general, to process each application adequately.

Ideally, the USPTO should have specialists on the payroll, one per field of expertise, with enough time and money to review a patent well. This never happens, for lack of funds. They were adequate to review Edison's electric bulb, and they're still adequate to reject the many free energey machines, but they can't possibly review fairly some complex ADN analysis method that relies on other bleeding edge genetics for example.

That's why I think asking professionals in the field to easily and freely criticise a granted patent would help them get real expertise for free.

Re:Patent "meta-moderation" system: a horrible ide

[CyricZ]

Indeed, the lack of funds necessary to run the system properly is disturbing. For every missle used to blow apart an innocent child or woman in Iraq, the US could probably fund three or four full-time researchers to properly assess patent applications.

The voluntary nature of involving professionals would be very beneficial. But more beneficial would be allocating funds away from the War Machine and instead towards the Innovation Machine.

Patent abstracts are almost meaningless

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone telling you that a patent blocks anyone from doing ___ because that is what the patent states in the TITLE or ABSTRACT does not understand the basics of patents.

If you want to know what a patent covers, you need to read the CLAIMS section. And the CLAIMS cannot "claim" anything that is not sufficiently detailed in the DETAILED SPECS. The DETAILED SPECS must fully disclose all the required details for someone else to build the invention without undue experimentation (in other words, making reverse-engineering obsolete because all the info is provided in a doc viewable by the public).

For 98% of patents, CLAIMS are either too broad that the defendant will find prior art, or they're too narrow that the defendant will find workarounds that avoid the claimed invention. Or the detailed specs do not sufficiently disclose what is claimed.

You see, people file patent applications for various reasons. One is for ego, another is for profit. You may be surprised to find more ego-driven patents than ones done for profit (which may explain why only roughly 1% of patents are profitable). Any fool with an application fee of a few hundred bucks can get a patent issued with an impressive-sounding title and abstract--but to get a patent with an enforceable set of CLAIMS on an invention others actually want to make is exceedingly difficult.

While people waste time argue about the merits of patents having broad-sounding titles & abstracts, the Patent Reform Act of 2005 seeks to destroy any deterrant effect of patents on large corporations by putting $1 million and $5 million caps on damages for WILLFUL/FRAUDULENT breech of a patent. These caps are large enough to scare away small businesses and startups while being small enough for large corporations to completely ignore patents of smaller companies.

In other words, while there are some good things in the Patent Reform Act of 2005, it seeks to turn the patent system into something that ONLY benefits a few large corporations at the expense of smaller companies and independent inventors.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND ASK THEM TO REMOVE THESE CAPS IN THE PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2005. OTHERWISE, WE'LL LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE INDEPENDENT INVENTORS AND STARTUPS HAVE VIRTUALLY NO CHANCE OF BECOMMING SUCCESSFUL AGAINST GIANT CORPORATIONS.

I'd refuse a buyout too.

[Colol]

Besides DVForge guys offered DLO to manufacture and sell PodBuddy, but they refused. Personally I fail to understand this.

I'd refuse too were I DLO, given the previous history of Jack Campbell's business ventures and the fact I already had a shipping product. The guy has claimed design of a desk he had nothing to do with (and wasn't even a reseller for). People have had their DVForge SightFlexes fail and opened them only to find a tangled mess of shoddy wire and solder nowhere near the FireWire spec. He sold a marked-up "laptop stand" that anyone could buy at Walmart as a plate holder for a couple bucks. And let's not forget the "Write a virus and I'll pay you $50 grand!" incident.

Why would I want to plunk down $23,000 on a product I've already designed and brought to market long before DVForge even announced theirs? I've already got the product of my own design, and I know what's in mine -- I don't know what's in DVForge's. Is it as crappy as some of their other products?

It's possible Mr. Campbell has turned a new leaf, but the onus is upon him to prove that to the community at large. Once burned, twice shy and all that.

I agree the PodBuddy is nicer looking than the TransPod -- but anyone can paint a pile of dog shit gold, too.

Re:I'd refuse a buyout too.

[J053]

Besides, that's not how the patent system is supposed to work. If I patent a product, and you come along later with a similar-and-possibly-infringing product, I'm not going to buy you out - I might offer you a license to produce your own product using my patented tech, but you pay me for that - not the other way around.

It almost looks like DVForge is trying a bit of extortion here - "Let's produce a similar product, and then get the patent owner to buld it for us. We can get all teh anti-IP-patent geeks on our side. Yeah, that's the ticket!".

Re:I'd refuse a buyout too.

[adzoox]

It's not the first time Jack has tried this too ... dig around on the internet to find out that he claims "Griffin was in talks to buy him out or vice versa"

Paul Griffin gave my website personal word that his company is *NOT* for sale and there were no such talks between him and Jack.

So? Patent the patent system.

[Poromenos1]

I will forthwith patent a patent system and sue the current patent system for infringing on my patent! Problem solved!

how

[Anonymous Coward]

how does a patent keep something off the market? it doesn't...it simply requires the licensee to pay a fair and reasonable fee.

its like saying steel mills keep cars off the market by charging for their steel.

sometimes these slashdot articles seem to purposely be inflamatory.

The patent system is working perfectly

[Circlotron]

It is making lots of money for lots of lawyers. What kind of people do you think structured the whole thing anyway? This protection of inventions etc stuff is secondary for sure, almost irrelevant. It's just a convenient framework for their machinations. Patents only have their (original) intended effect over people who *want* to do what's right - QED.

Re:The patent system is working perfectly

[kanweg]

"It is making lots of money for lots of lawyers"

I just sent the guy free advice on how to continue without infringing.

Bert
Patent attorney.

Re:The patent system is working perfectly

[Circlotron]

Good for you, Bert. Notice I said "lots", not "all". I can only imagine how much it must gall you see some of the things these other guys do, therefore bringing reproach on you even though you strive to have moral ethics in dealing with others. That doesn't make the news unfortunately. Keep up the good work! :-)

Patents don't protect general functionality.

[nurb432]

It appears they do now.

I agree its not how the system was intended to operate, but its how the system has 'morphed'.

I'm afraid its going to get far worse before it gets better ( unless the big players come along and just take control, which in that case it WONT get better )

Re:Patents don't protect general functionality.

[Anonymous Coward]

In actuality patents have always protected ideas and outcomes. For example, the patent of the car. What is a car exactly? Well it's got to have an engine of some kind, more then 2 wheels, and a seat(s). Well hey there is a lot of ways to configure those components so that they look totally different. Does that mean that one of my ancestors should have made a 3 wheel pyramidal shaped car and called it something different just to make money? No, because that is still what a basic car is. Though a crappy design, it is still in spirit a car.

Think about a blender. How many ways can one produce a blender? Well there is a ton of ways. So if one of your family members was the first person to produce an electrical blender you believe a big company should have been allowed to get around their patent simply by using a different chopping mechanism? That sounds pretty stupid because it is pretty stupid. Simply using a different chopping mechanism does not change the spirit of the company's product, as it is in spirit a blender.

Another example would be lets say a helicopter. There are several configurations for a helicopter and each is just as good as the next. Does that mean that there should have been several patents for each type of helicopter? No because the first guy to make it shouldn't be forced out of business by airline companies who simply used a different design. The sprit of the product still infringes on the patent of the original helicopter.

There are a ton of ideas that have been backed by patent systems all around the world. Simply type a devices name into Google and you'll find all about how all these ideas are protected by patents and not just the actually mechanism.

Fine

[Mr. Underbridge]

An FM transmitter and power supply/charging assembly electrically coupleable with an MP3 player. The assembly includes a modular docking unit having a main body portion with a docking cavity therein, wherein the main body portion contains the FM transmitter and power/charging circuitry, with coupling means in the docking cavity for connecting the MP3 player with the FM transmitter and power/charging circuitry, to accommodate FM transmission by the FM transmitter of audio content when played by the MP3 player in the docking cavity of the modular docking unit, and adapted for transmitting electrical power through the modular docking unit and the power/charging circuitry therein, for charging of a battery of the MP3 player and/or powering of the MP3 player.

I figure my AAC player shouldn't infringe on this, then?

Busted

[Doc Ruby]

The incompetent examiners are part of the system. They routinely punt bad patents into effect, expecting that challenges will be worked out by the courts later. So they have no real accountability. The fact that they continue to do this, when the courts are clogged with bad patent complaints means their managers are also incompetent, as are the people at the top who are in a position to reform the system. Your metamoderation system for patent examination is a fix to the system, so of course even you admit that it is broken.

And grafting on patents for descriptions, rather than devices, instead of copyrights, is a way to ensure that the broken system does irreparable damage. It's already doing damage with patents on descriptions of devices. Software patents, descriptions of what devices do, rather than of what they are, are unsupportable, and make abuse the rule rather than the exception.

BS

[Stinking Pig]

the second product is clearly a knock-off of the first. Patent system is working as it should in this case, move along.

Besides which, it's hardly rocket-science to put together something like this without infringing the patent -- perhaps even with a compelling feature like non-iPod-specificity. That way those of us with better players can use it now, and the iPod owners can use it next year when the little interface at the bottom changes pin-outs.

Re:BS

[Anonymous Coward]

the second product is clearly a knock-off of the first. Patent system is working as it should in this case, move along.

But you don't patent products! You patent inventions. You don't know what you're talking about.

Time to market and time to success

[Create an Account]

Also, the invention you propose would be an instant hit. Most real inventions require a longer period of development and refinement before they become financially rewarding. Without patents, someone (like Exxon, in this case) would hit the market with a copy (your estimate of six months to a year seems laughably optimistic considering the capital intensity of the petrochemical industry) and immediately dominate you because of their greater existing distribution network, regardless of their products quality.

Patents DO serve a purpose. We just need a much better implementation than we have now.

Here's a question

[portwojc]

Is an iPOD an MP3 player as said in their claim?

Remember dependent claims don't count on patents. The ipod isn't mentioned until later (and as a dependent claim) only the generic classification MP3 player is used.

I thought the ipod converted music (MP3s included) to it's own format or am I wrong?

Hmmm... Sure we meant to say THAT but in patents you have to watch yourself very carefully.

Re:Here's a question

[68kmac]

I thought the ipod converted music (MP3s included) to it's own format or am I wrong?

You are wrong. The iPod plays MP3s just fine - unaltered.

Maybe you were thinking about Sony's earlier players that converted everything to ATRAC?

Re:Here's a question

[Winterblink]

The iPod itself is simply a media player. It can play MP3s, AAC (Apple's preferrec audio codec), and others. It does not convert anything on th fly at all. iTunes, the jukeboxing software used with iTunes, can convert MP3s to AAC if the user explicitly tells it to. It can import from CD into AAC or MP3 format, but defaults to AAC. The user can change this.

They are correct

[riversky]

Clearly a rip off!! I own two patents and if someone infringes on my property (which is what a patent is) then they have to pay me (which can be done here by too) or I will sue to keep hold of my rights. Even if the "other" product is better. By the way this would be like someone saying they can build a better house on my lot and then tearing down my home and building a better but similar home and selling it. If you accept this then I guess patent infringment is ok.

Re:They are correct

[rmpotter]

Funny you should say that. The U.S. Supreme Court has just decided that US towns can expropriate private land so that corporations like Wal-Mart can build on the land. So your "property" may not always be "yours" -- though if your patents were to be expropriated because of this "eminent domain" decision, you would at least be compensated. So yes, someone can build a better home on your lot if they convince you town that it is in the public's interest to do so.

Re:They are correct

[what about]

The similarity is wrong. They are not building on your lot, they are not taking anything away from you in any common sense, since if they really took it away then you will be without it.

Having said that it is also true that if you have spent some time and effort to "discover" something you should be able to recover the costs and make a profit out of it.

The problem with patents in IT is that patents holders quite often do not seek to make money out of it by making products, they just sit idling waiting for someone to develop a product and then ask money from them and this is against the spirit of the patent system.

Possibly, the way out would be to give the patent to public domain if the patent holder does not "produce" something out of it in a one year time.

Re:They are correct

[Anonymous Coward]

This is bs. If you can do it better - do it, otherwise let others do it. As a consumer, I don't vare whose patent this is, all I care about is a good product and good value for my money.

Re:They are correct

[riversky]

Yes I saw that. I was very surprised that the "liberal" judges on the Supreme Court would side with the wealthy developers who want to tear down mostly working class people homes. I can tell you that it won't ever be used to tear down a gated community. The conservatives are right in their outrage in this.

Re:They are correct

[riversky]

Yes they are building on my lot because the patent is granting me a property right under the U.S. Constitution. Most people who have a property right own a home. Individuals, like me, or companies that own a patent have a further form of property even if it is intanglible. So yes, perhaps not tearing down my home, but building a better one in my back yard and selling it infringes my property rights.

Re:They are correct

[everphilski]

Eminent domain only applies to physical property, not to intellectual property. Your argument is null and void.
Second, it wasnt for Wal Mart it was for commercial developers who were trying to breathe life into a failing part of town. I don't necessarily agree with the ruling; but it wasnt so that we could have more Wal Mart's. Please keep your facts straight. Eminent domain is a sticky situation because it is difficult to see where the public good ends: is it just with roadways and railways, or does it also extend to creating jobs, and an economy so a city does not die?
-everphilski-

Re:They are correct

[Vegeta99]

Wrong, bucko.

It's more like he bought the lot next to the house you had for sale, and built a better one. Nothing need be said about the design of the house or anything, just that it's a house. And his is better.

The house-buyers are happy, they now have a choice, your crap job, or the really nice estate next door.

These fucks patented a goddamn FM TRANSMITTER that plugs into an iPod. My CD player had one years ago. Obvious patent. It's just blocking competition, and the owners of the patent should be shot.

Re:They are correct

[rmpotter]

I agree that eminent domain has NOT (as far as i've heard) been applied to intellectual property. My point was that given the recent supreme court ruling, I can imagine someone may attempt it. In any case, check out this CNN Story: "A recent study by the property rights group Institute for Justice, which is representing the New London homeowners in court, found about 10,000 cases from 1998 to 2002 of local governments in 41 states using or threatening to use eminent domain to transfer home and properties from one private owner to another. Courts in at least six states have upheld the practice."

Wal-mart is mentioned specifically as a beneficiary of eminent domain here: Wal-Mart, the Abuse of Eminent Domain and Corporate Welfare.

Re:They are correct

[gerardrj]

It's not REAL property, it's INTELLECTUAL property that a patent grants you. Someone else using your intellectual property does not in any way deprive you of using it yourself.
If my using your patented idea were like taking real property, then my using the idea would cause you to no longer have the idea yourself. That clearly is not the case.

No FM transmitter? Still an infringer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out patent application 10/316,961. If you connect any audio source to your car radio other than same brand equipment, you'll probably be an infringer after this patent application is granted.

DLO resources?

[Lawrence_Bird]

Does anybody know much about this company? From the website
it doesn't sound like they have especially extensive resources
to fight a patent suit either. If this guy things his
'invention' really is so dramatically different then he
should be able to find a lawyer willing to bring the case
and either take the standard cut or equity in the product.
I'm guessing DLO is bluffing.

Re:DLO resources?

[Anonymous Coward]

Larry Bird? Hey, would you by chance know Ralph Nader?

I don't see why this patent would stop him

[halr9000]

Here's the comment I left on their website:

PodBuddy idea

Instead of dropping the podbuddy, why not just drop the FM transmitter function? It seems that the whole point of the patent is an "integrated fm transmitter and mp3 player dock". Take out the FM, provide a line-out which you can access from the ipod dock controller. If you want to market a convenient FM transmitter--do that too. I honestly don't see why you would NOT build your product this way. I'd buy it, if I didn't already have a solution for my ipod.

Re:Patent "meta-moderation" system: a horrible ide

[lp-habu]

But more beneficial would be allocating funds away from the War Machine and instead towards the Innovation Machine.

You might want to consider that a little longer. Ever since Ogg the caveman picked up the first rock to improve his chances in a dispute with the guy in the next cave a rather large percentage of technological advances have come about because of their utility to the War Machine. Attempts to build a comparable Innovation Machine have been largely unsuccessful.

Absolute patent trolls in this way as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Their patent is so broad that it covers things like capturing an IP address, and visually notifying users on the computer screen. They hammered poor Tometa software into a licensing agreement because they didn't have the resources to fight back.

http://www.absolute.com/Public/main/patents.asp/

Re:Patent "meta-moderation" system: a horrible ide

[CyricZ]

It's not so much that the War Machine inherently is better at providing technical innovation than the Innovation Machine is. It is just that historically, the War Machine has had literally millions of times the amount of financial resources available to it.

Like I said, if a qualified patent reviewer was hired at the cost of a single US$75000 missle used to blow the legs off of some innocent Iraqis or Afghanis, then the system would improve. The Innovation Machine would flourish. Do that hundreds of times over, and the Innovation Machine will be a glorious success.

Not Incompetent...

[MO!]

This is the result of the "conservative" privatization push. See, when the USPTO was fully funded by congress appropriations, the examiners were focused on quality of patent application. Although bogus patents still snuck through, they were no where near as abused as presently. Then the idea came about to model them more like the USPS, who switched to self-funding back in early 80's I think. So the USPTO also became self-funding - the idealist delusion is that they would be more "efficient", keeping costs down. Instead, they switched to quantity of patent applications filed. Since they are funded by the application fees, the more applications the more revenue. If the courts rule a patent is bogus - so be it, they keep the fee.

So this is all by intent, make patents easier to obtain, and more people will file applications. More applications equals more money, so actually scrutinizing them and rejecting the obviously bogus harms the public image - must maintain the "easy to get a patent - come file an app!" mantra going.

This is the fallacy of self-funding or privatization will lower costs and increase quality is blatently clear. But that's their story and they're sticking to it - they make good money off this here broken system and ain't about to change it! It's not about "build(ing) a more perfect Union" - it's about gouging as much as you can to purchase that "American Dream" without having to share it.

Re:Not Incompetent...

[Doc Ruby]

I'm inclined to agree, because the rest of the dynamics add up. But the hole in the formula you describe is the missing proof that certified patents are cheaper than those denied. They still keep the fee on denied patents. So if you have some reference that shows that their "patent office business" spends less to accept an application than to reject it, I'm convinced. And pissed off.

Re:Not Incompetent...

[Christian Engstrom]

But the hole in the formula you describe is the missing proof that certified patents are cheaper than those denied. They still keep the fee on denied patents.

Ah, but once the patent is granted, the patent holder will have to pay renewal, or "maintenance", fees at regular intervals. If the patent is denied, it won't be renewed, so there will be no renewal fees for the PTO to collect.

If you study the USPTO Fee Schedule, you'll see how it works.

$900 due at 3.5 years after it was granted, $2,300 due at 7.5 years, and $3,800 due at 11.5 years. Compared to the $300 for the initial application, if I read the fee list correctly.

And the renewal fees are the good part of the patent office business, since the PTO doesn't actually have to do anything for the money, except make a note in the file that the fee has been paid. So for those patent offices around the world that are funded in whole or in part by the fees they collect, there is a direct incentive to let the standards slip to the lowest level they can possibly get away with.

Re:Not Incompetent...

[Doc Ruby]

Well, there is bureaucratic overhead in maintaining patent records. Including bureaucracy for archive, but also delivering evidence to new examinations, court challenges, and other research. But I expect that the average cost across all the patents is less than $7500 over 12 years. However, those fees also have to cover the time the examiners were paid to grant the patent. If they cost $100:h, including real estate and other costs of their office, as well as their share of administration and pensions, (examiner "TCO")and they spend an average of 3 days per application, that's $2400 right off the bat, leaving $5100 for the next 12 years, $425:y. Which might be fairly close to cost.

We won't be able to really be sure, despite our justified suspicions, unless we know 1> the average hours spent examining an accepted vs. rejected application; 2> the average "TCO" of the examiners, and 3> the average administrative costs for patent research, per patent, over 12 years (vs. $0 for rejects). If you can dig that up, we've got an airtight case for the dangerous economics that fuel the "patent mill" over there on Privitization Hill.

My Email Response - A lost Business opportunity

[aristotle-dude]

I understand that DLO (Digital Lifestyle Outfitters) is using patent #6,591,085 to keep a PodBuddy, designed by DVForge, a product, competing with DLO's TransPod, off the market.

I would like to say that because of these actions, I will never purchase a single product from your company. Furthermore, I will do everything in my power to inform everyone I come in contact with to also avoid purchasing anything from your company in the future. Word of mouth advertising can work both ways. It can be a powerful tool to advance the name of your company in its products but a negative reputation can also produce significant harm.

I understand that DVForge had offered to sell their designs and molds for the PodBuddy for a reasonable price but your company refused the offer. Had you chosen to accept the offer, perhaps I would have reconsidered becoming a customer of yours despite your business tactics through use of patents to limit competition.

I fear that your greed and short-sightedness will be your undoing. These sorts of actions do not reflect favourably upon your company and will most likely cause your firm to lose a great deal of potential business.

Regards,
Aristotle

PS. I look forward to your company's bankruptcy liquidation sale in the near future.

Re:My Email Response - A lost Business opportunity

[CapnRob]

Before you get all worked up about this ... do a little research on Jack Campbell and DV Forge. As listed in other posts in this thread, the guy has had a long career of being Less Than Forthcoming about his products, their origins, and their real manufacturer, to the point where not only do I not believe him when he says his product is superior, I don't believe him when he says the other company is using the patent to keep his product off the market.

Re:My Email Response - A lost Business opportunity

[focitrixilous P]

Let's compare the cost/benefit here.

Lost: between 1 - 50 customers, depending on the number of people who consult you before buying gadgets.

Gained: prevention of a directly competing product that could roughly halve sales, assuming similar quality. Most consumers will just pick one of the two if they are next to each other at a store.

I'd hold off on making plans for that sale any time soon. Just from looking at the devices (I'd link, but DLO is a flash site (bleh)) the PodBuddy looks a lot like the TransPod, has the exact same feature set, at the same price. Unless the PodBuddy has some revolutionary technology not described on their website, they seem to be something close to a clone. This is what patents are meant to do. Patents are the only thing keeping the WallMarts of the world from making cheap knockoffs of everything, and this seems to be fair at first glance.

Re:My Email Response - A lost Business opportunity

[aristotle-dude]

It's called a blog and the network affect. Imagine a bunch of people blogging on this kind of thing.

Even forgetting about blogs, imagine people talking to their co-workers who in turn mention something to people they know and so on. That is how "word of mouth" advertising works and also how a smear campaign can work.

Your scenario about "people who consult your before buying gadgets" is irrelevant but even there the network effect comes into play.

Then there is the the fact that similar devices have been on the market for some time now produced by other companies.

Re:My Email Response - A lost Business opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that you're ignoring Jack Campbell's long documented history of dodgy, and occasionally criminal, business activity.

Documented and verifiable is the point.

wrong

[pbjones]

this is exactly what patents are supposed to do. It does not matter if someone else builds a better version, the person who developed the original idea has some protection, to think otherswise is the domain of big business. In the good old days the second company would negotiate a license or some other arrangement.

Why Can't You Patent?

[Khyber]

But imagine this: suppose I spend a lot of time and money developing some computing method that drastically reduce, say, the number of transistors in a CPU and its power consumption: why wouldn't I be able to patent my software method and make money out of it, if only to recoup my initial investment?

Because transistors in a CPU and power consumed is primarily hardware, not software? For the misinformation you've just stated you'd never be granted that patent.

Re:Why Can't You Patent?

[Hal_Porter]

The CPUs may be designed by humans, but all the low level synthesis is done by software - imagine some VHDL synthesis algorithm that produces low power CPUs for example.

Similar Belkin product already available

[ntxb229]

I was at circuit city yesterday and apparently Belkin already has a similar product available (although it's for the ipod mini).

Re:Similar Belkin product already available

[Junior Samples]

Perhaps Belkin is licensed by the patent owner and pays royalties. Either that, or the patent holder is afraid to take on Belkin for fear of losing the patent. Belkin is pretty big and has very deep pockets. Whoever has the most money wins - Isn't that how it works?

Re:Similar Belkin product already available

[adzoox]

The product DVForge is selling was sourced from the SAME factory as the Belkin product (it's NOT original) and from what I know - Belkin was also sent a cease and decist letter.

Re:Patent "meta-moderation" system: a horrible ide

[lp-habu]

Before there was a "War Machine" which got any funding at all, most technological advances were associated with weaponry and man's desire to kill the other guy before the other guy could do it to him. That might not fit with your world view, but it's true. Could indicate a flaw in the world view.

Parts?

[Lost Penguin]

Can they sell the injection molded plastic; the circuit boards.
Even as a built it yourself kit?
Some assembly required....
The plastic alone does not infringe.
The printed board does not infringe.
The resisters etc do not infringe.

Just My $.02

dvforge's product won't ship, anyway

[plambert]

This is the same guy who held the fake Mac worm contest.

His track record shows a history of stealing products from other companies and selling them as his own, or designing "great new products" and disappearing with the investment money.

His reputation is foul, at best, and my personal dealings with him have upheld that reputation.

He is perfectly happy pimping Slashdot for publicity while he (presumably) bilks investors or whatever it is he is doing to make a quick buck.

http://www.macintouch.com/mactable.html

Re:dvforge's product won't ship, anyway

[adzoox]

A better link with more detailed history is here

Wish things could change

[Anonymous Coward]

In a perfect world, we could make a constitutional amendment to end patents.

$5 on Ebay

[Anonymous Coward]

You can buy the same thing one ebay for $5. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&cate gory=75523&item=5784831755&rd=1

Re:Patent "meta-moderation" system: a horrible ide

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the misiles wouldn't be so expensive if they weren't patented.

Problem?

[mblase]

According to the designer's site, they believe that their product is not infringing on the patent, but can't afford the court case that would follow. Clearly this is a problem with the justice system.

Actually, it's a problem with the high cost of legal expertise. And that's something that's simply unavoidable, because patent law isn't something you can brush up on in a summer mail-away course.

The legal system works just fine. The world simply favors those who can buy things over those who can't, and to find blame for THAT, you have to go all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

Re:Problem?

[deaddrunk]

The legal system doesn't work fine. The law should be applied equally regardless of status. The legal profession obviously costs too much, time to start training Indians in US law.

Re:Problem?

[Austaph]

Actually, it's not a problem at all. If by world you meant America, then the world does favor those who can pay up. I don't think this dates back as far as the beginning of time as much as it dates back to the Greek Sophists. Equal opportunity to all, but if you can't pay the bill then you're on your own. I'm poor as hell and I still wouldn't have it any other way.

the purpose of patents...

[benjamindees]

Perhaps you missed the amendment that changed that section of the Constitution. It now reads:

To promote the elderly, dependent upon large groups of young people working in non-productive medical fields, and other large corporations, dependent upon cheap labor, by securing for as long as possible to said corporations the exclusive right to be free from competition for their respective products, thereby creating a command economy, dominated by monopolies, and fostering unemployment levels necessary to support them, and the globalist army;

Storyline patents

[Christian Engstrom]

[T]he woman who writes the Harry Potter books ought to be able to patent stories about magical school kids.

You didn't think that just because the idea is preposterous, the patent people haven't already thought of it?

Here is a link to a firm of US patent lawyers that are trying to expand patentability into plot elements in novels as well: http://www.plotpatents.com/

And after all, why shouldn't they? If they succeed, it means increased revenues for patent lawyers. If literature, freedom of expression, or society at large happen to lose as a consequence, do you think they care?

My email to DLO

[jamienk]

Hello,

In the past I have purchased a Belkin and a Griffith product, both claiming to allow me to use my iPod in my rental cars via the car's FM stereo. Both products have been a huge disappointment due to poor signal, poor interface and limited options for changing the station, and low batter life. I have two different family members in the Boston area who have returned their iTrips due to the above problems.

I have been eagerly following the development of dvforge's PodBuddy, and have been looking forward to purchasing their product.

I am sadly discouraged at the legal tactics of your company to block this product. I find such business behavior in the technology world very upsetting. Instead of trying to build a competitive product, your company has decided to block a clearly superior competitor with strong-arm, cowardly, and quite frankly sleazy legal tactics.

My anger at your company has motivated me enough to publicize this story as much as I can, via my blogs, my work clients, and my press contacts.

I will also refrain from making any purchases from DLO unless you change your tactics to reflect honest, hard-working business ethics.

Thank you for reading my feedback,

hypocrite?

[pergamon]

Search on Google for: site:http://www.dvforge.com/ patent-pending

One of the pages that'll come up includes:

Our JamPlug products are patent-pending implementations of a clever, but very simple idea: one musician, one instrument, one connection.

Some information about the patent

[mavenguy]

I was in the middle of composing a detailed analysis of the prosecution of the application on which the patent issued, plus analyze that fact that two Continuation in part (CIP) applications have been filed and are pending, but, as now happens all to often, %$#^%$%#$%@ Firefox 1.0.4 crashed on me and I lost everything.

Executive summary:

1) The original application (the "grandparent") was allowed on first action, that is, exactly as the applicant filed; there was no rejection of any claims.

2) The first CIP (10/615,108) is all the claims of the patent with a limitation of a retention element to hold the MP3 player. This is currently under rejection on the basis of obviousness double patenting (which is NOT the usual obviousness under 35 USC 103 ) which, if not argued sucessfully by applicant, can be overcome by filing a terminal disclaimer; the resulting patent will die if and when the parent patent does.

3) The second CIP (10/780,329) has not yet been acted on. It is, as I paraphrase claim 1, a combination of a) and MP3 player and b) an audio player unit containing a speaker, and, optionally, FM receiver, both operatively adapted to the MP3 player.

Information of all the applications (the two CIPs have image file wrapper information) are publically available on the PTO's PAIR portal

Vintage Jack...

[jpellino]

"My statement to Jeff was that the PodBuddy would likely sell about five times as many units as his TransPod."

Hype and bluff. Sliver-tongued as ever.

"And, that, if we can't build it, then he should build it. After all, he's the one using a patent to keep a better, more desirable competitive product off the market."

Erm, he's exercising his rights under the patent granted. Just like you would. And a patent search could have saved you all of this nonsense.

"It seems to make sense to just let the guy have it, if he's so scared of the PodBuddy being sold. I would rather do that than have thousands of our customers disappointed, and, see such a terrific product just die."

It's not your call, Jack. He's the one with the rights, you didn't do your homework. This inching your toe right up to the name-calling line is typical.

Re:Vintage Jack...

[Gorbag]

"It seems to make sense to just let the guy have it, if he's so scared of the PodBuddy being sold. I would rather do that than have thousands of our customers disappointed, and, see such a terrific product just die."

And Jack wasn't even "letting the guy have it", he was trying to recover his sunk cost in a product that, had he done his DD, wouldn't have been made in the first place.

The problem with software partents

[autopr0n]

The problem with software patents, is that companies like microsoft patent one tiny part of a huge system, and then the only way to make software that's compatable with is by violating the patent. Look at microsoft's sender ID system, they produce a 'fingerprint' of the sender based on standard mail headers, but the algorithm to do that is patented. So in order to be compatable with their system, you need to license the patent. I think this sort of use of software patents should be banned. On the other hand, something like a new and innovative video compression codec should be patentable, IMO. 1. What do you suppose patents are for? Well, that's a very complicated answer, but lets assume that they are there for some reason, in terms of physical objects and devices. 2. What do think patents are for, if you think they work so well? What is their purpose? Well, this is the same question as #1. I'm not going to get into that, but I guess you think that regular patents are OK. 3. What perculiar property do you feel pertains to computational methods that distinguish them from any other creative work? Well, whats the diffrence between designing a new kind of valve or something and any other type of creative work? 4. What is it about software that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent? What is it about physical devices that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent? Most people don't bother to enforce copyright on physical designs, but you certanly could. Why not copyright blueprints or whatnot? The real question is what makes hardware diffrent then software that it shouldn't be patentable?

Re:The problem with software partents

[NickFortune]

The problem with software patents, is that companies like microsoft patent one tiny part of a huge system, and then the only way to make software that's compatable with is by violating the patent.

Plus there is the fact that the work required to file a patent is trivial compared to the work required to implement the idea; there is the fact that multiple overlapping patents can make any development economically unrealistic by anyone who isn't a large corporation with a large patent portfolio; the fact that they can be, and are being used in an anti-competetive manner, and the further fact that using them in this manner is directly opposed to the intention of patent law in the first place, since patents were designed with the intention of fostering innvation, not limitng it to a few large corporations.

It's a complex subject, and software patents are wrong for many reasons and on many levels.

On the other hand, something like a new and innovative video compression codec should be patentable, IMO

Why? You can make money on your idea by implementing it and protecting it with NDAs, licence agreements and copyright. There is no need for the patent to make money. The only thing patents bring to the table is to stop anyone inventing a similar but different codec and competing with your product. Is that what you want? Remember, you're more likely to be the guy banned from competing than the one doing the banning.

And even if you get the patent, it probably costs more than you can afford to defend it, or to challenge a rival patent if there is corporate money backing it up. The idea that patents are for the protection of the little guy is a myth, I'm afraid.

1. What do you suppose patents are for?

Well, that's a very complicated answer, but lets assume that they are there for some reason, in terms of physical objects and devices.

I probably should have said "software patents" there. Nevertheless, how about: to reward innovation; to repay the expense of developing inventions and to encourage the publication of schematics so that the knowledge of inventions should not be lost on the death of the inventor?

Doesn't seem overly complicated to me. Am I missing something?

Incidentally, while I'm quite happy to discuss this with you, the questions there were addressed to ome Roscoe P. Coltrane, who stated as a fact that software patents worked and worked well. Now I can't see how software patents can possibly be considered to work well, given their supposed purpose of encouraging innovation, so I wondered what Roscoe thought they did, given that he thought they did it so well.

I'm not opposed to hardware patents, so I'll accept your assumption as it applies to hardware. But if you intend to argue that software patents work well, I'm going to want a bit more than "let's assume" :)

3. What perculiar property do you feel pertains to computational methods that distinguish them from any other creative work?

Well, whats the diffrence between designing a new kind of valve or something and any other type of creative work?

Lots of ways to approach that one, but I'll stick to the most important one: software manipulates symbols. It has no concrete inputs or outputs. Software is a symbol stream that manipulates other symbols. As such it belongs purely to the realm of abstraction, of ideas and concepts. And ideas are not and never have been patentable.

Now if you have an answer that's better than "why not?" I'd like to hear it.

4. What is it about software that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent? What is it about physical devices that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent?

You're begging the question again. "Why should software be treated the same as hardware" is (IMHO) an excelle

Re:The problem with software partents

[wallykeyster]

The problem with software patents, is that companies like microsoft patent one tiny part of a huge system, and then the only way to make software that's compatable with is by violating the patent. Look at microsoft's sender ID system, they produce a 'fingerprint' of the sender based on standard mail headers, but the algorithm to do that is patented. I think this sort of use of software patents should be banned. On the other hand, something like a new and innovative video compression codec should be patentable, IMO.

An algorithm is an algorithm, for purposes of this conversation. Why is a video compression algorithm so much more in need of a patent than one that creates a unique fingerprint for each email. When talking about patents, these are no different.

>1. What do you suppose patents are for?

Well, that's a very complicated answer, but lets assume that they are there for some reason, in terms of physical objects and devices.

So you didn't answer the question, or at least said nothing related to this thread.

>2. What do think patents are for, if you think they work so well? What is their purpose?

Well, this is the same question as #1. I'm not going to get into that, but I guess you think that regular patents are OK.

Still no answer.

>3. What perculiar property do you feel pertains to computational methods that distinguish them from any other creative work?

Well, whats the diffrence between designing a new kind of valve or something and any other type of creative work?

First, you didn't answer the question. Posing another question does not count. Second, your example is a physical creation, not a mathematical or logical process.

>4. What is it about software that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent?

What is it about physical devices that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent? Most people don't bother to enforce copyright on physical designs, but you certanly could. Why not copyright blueprints or whatnot? The real question is what makes hardware diffrent then software that it shouldn't be patentable?

Using your example from question three, are you saying that a new valve is copyrighted? From the US Copyright Office: "Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works." Is your valve a literary work? Perhaps it is musical?

How do you imagine blueprints are patentable? I'll give you a hint - they aren't.

More information for you, courtesy of the US Patent and Trademark Office: "Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights are three types of intellectual property protection. They are different and serve different purposes. Patents protect inventions, and improvements to existing inventions... Copyrights protect literary, artistic, and musical works." You clearly do not understand copyrights and patents. Please stop talking out of your ass.

Re:The problem with software partents

[KarmaMB84]

What's the difference between implementing the algorithm directly into a custom micro-chip and running the algorithms in software on a CPU? If I can implement it as an accelerator card, can I patent it and keep people from just doing it in software?

Re:The problem with software partents

[NickFortune]

Well, I would say that if you design a chip, then you patent the hardware aspect but not the software. Furthermore, if the only novelty of your chip is in the software, say it's a EEPROM with code burned into it, then it's not patentable, because that's software.

But in any case, even if the mechanics of your chip are unique beyond debate, the algorithm is not. If someone simulates your chip in software, well that's an acceptable alternative implementation and software is not subject to patents.

This all as it would be if-I-ruled-the-world, obviously. This what I think would be fair.

Trade percentage for lawyer work.

[Anonymous Coward]

If he truely believes he isn't infringing he could talk with lawyers about trading a percentage of the profits, or shares in his company that develops this, for the law work he needs.

Is there really an underdog?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like every "underdog" story, there is the real truth, and there is the story you tell the public to get their sympathy. There is no proof the the Podbuddy guy didn't rip the idea, cob together a clone, then got busticated with the infringement before he could get China to ship 'em out and flood the market.

Furthermore, why in heck should I, for example, after pimpslapping a competitor with a lawful infringement suit, want to pay out $23K to buy the dies to a ripoff-copy of my own product?

Let the Podbuddy rot on a shelf in Jack's garage someplace.

disclaimer: new->(ipod({wasteoftime=>'yes', wasteofmoney=>'yes'}));

Re:My email to DLO

[Pitr]

But DLO is in the right. It's the same product, in function anyway. That's exactly what patents are for. It's not like dvforge is seling an ipod to coffee maker adapter, or something else vastly different from DLO's product. Heck, if DLO's implementation was hardwired instead of FM, or didn't do the re-charging, I'd say fine, they're using "strongarm tactics against a superior product", but they're not. They're using legal tactics against an infringing product.

Thanks, Slashdot!

[Yosho]

When I first saw this story, I had the same reaction that a lot of Slashdotters here are having -- OMG patents are horrible DLO is horrible for enforcing their patent, etc.

However, after a little bit of research into the topic, I've discovered that DVForge's product really is pretty close to a copy of DLO's; I can't see anything significantly different about it. DVForge also seems to have a pretty bad reputation. DVForge really is blatantly infringing on DLO's patent.

Now, the more important question is -- is this patent wrong? Is this kind of idea trivial? Well, I don't know. I have an iPod, but I hadn't seen a product like this before or even thought about looking for one. It is a very cool product, though, so I just ordered one from DLO.

Again, thanks!

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Informative.

Re:My email to DLO

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this down as -1 troll plant

Before sympathy is given to DVForge

[adzoox]

One should read here:

The True History Of Jack Campbell and MacMice/DVForge: A Lie Each Week

I have been unbiasly advocating against this guy for 3 years now. His scams, lies, and illegal activity is corroding the entire 3rd party Apple peripheral industry. He is costing companies such as Griffin and DLO nightmarish litigation and security concerns.

He breaks dozens of Apple trademark naming rules.

I applaud DLO's actions - they are the first of MANY that are about to really sock it to him from the buzz I have been collecting on my BLOG.

The ONLY reason no one (including Apple) has taken action so far - he has been relatively insignificant and is so deep in debt that if sued - would be a waste of effort.

Prior Art?

[Artanin]

Ok looking at this I just see prior art written over the place. I used to own a device that turned minijack into FM modulation. I also used to own a device that turned a cigarette lighter into a power supply. How are either of these 2 devices anything more then enything I owned long enough ago to foget the manufactor or product name? Just a thought.

Re:My email to DLO

[adzoox]

Interesting that you say that - Jack actually MAKES ZERO of his products ... this is why Belkin was also sued - the product DVForge was going to release was 90% the same as a Belkin product that was about to come to market as well.

DVForge just had this sourced from the same factory.

Either you're a plant or a blatant idiot!

Underground Manufacturing

[nrlightfoot]

If I were in a situation like this I would take the operation underground as an act of civil disobedience against our failed patent system. We really need some people to revolt against the system if we want it to seriously change.

Re:Underground Manufacturing

[adzoox]

...I would take the operation underground as an act of civil disobedience

DVForge already is an underground operation that OFTEN thumbs at civil obedience, integrity or business ethic.

Jack Campbell, the CEO, is most famous for this statement:

"Anyone who would not lie to protect their business is suspect in my mind"

TransPod - Noisey and poorly built

[TheScream]

I own one of DLO's TransPods. I have used it lots despite its flaws simply because there is nothing better out there. I have found that although the TransPod is good in theory it has the following problems:

• The mounting system puts too much stress on your car's power socket. In one car the socket actually came out with the TransPod and had to be repaired.
• The mounting system is poor and too inflexible as far as layout is concerned. I have tried it in a Subaru Outback (Legacy), Nissan Pathfinder, Holden Monaro (Pontiac GTO) and Mazda 121 and none have sufficient room to mount the TransPod without it flying all over the place when going around corners. The best one has been the outback where I can wedge it between the dashboard and the cupholder.
• The power supply is not suffiently filtered to allow use without having interference from the car's alternator
• The output volume is very very low compared to radio stations (as it draws from line out, the iPod volume control has no effect)

Now that it is out of warranty I may open it up and try and "fix" the problems myself by replacing the power supply with a filtered one and boosting the output volume pre-transmission to improve the signal to noise ratio.

Re:TransPod - Noisey and poorly built

[adzoox]

Your comments were exactly what Jack Campbell intends with this story being published and promoted on slashdot.

He wants isolated incidents like yours posted so he can seemingly discredit the product he is trying to steal.

In my personal use of the Transpod I have had an amazing experience, it is perfect for my car and is very sturdy in it's construction - something I would hesitste to vouch for with any MacMice product. (Although admittedly, I have had zero to few problems with any (read as all) the MacMice products I have tested.)

So, who moderated me a troll ?

[Space cowboy]

... and did you even *read* what I wrote, or was it just a knee-jerk reaction of "Hey, man, he sayz patents good. Letsgettim"

Jeez. Disagreeing with the opinion of a post is *not* why something is a troll post. Worrawanker.

Simon

IPOD's aren't MP3 players

[Trauma_Hound1]

Technically an IPOD isn't an MP3 player, since all audio is encoded to apples codec on the IPOD.

Re:IPOD's aren't MP3 players

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong

My "angrily" worded letter.

[Franharrington]

I sent an email the way of DLO:

I would just like to voice my opinion on the whole podbuddy dispute. I feel that your company is doing a great disservice to us, the customers. I do not even own an ipod, but like to keep abreast on new technological developments, and the news of your company's use of a patent to block production of a rival product greatly upset me. This is a huge hindrance to the advancement of technology. What even more greatly upset me was the fact that DVForge offered to let you produce (and profit from) the podbuddy and that they were denied. That doesn't make any sense to me. This is all very disappointing news to me. You have lost me as a potential future customer. I will not buy any of your products and I will instruct others to do likewise. I would appreciate if this email can be passed through the proper channels and not just simply ignored.

-Fran Harrington

Consumer choice

[cordelya]

I'm just poking my head in through the door to remind everyone about consumer choice (see also ethical consumerism). Boycotting a product or company for preventing consumers from getting what they want is just as valid as boycotting companies that utilize sweatshops. In addition to sending email to DLO, we can send a message to DLO by refusing to purchase their products. You can be certain that I will never again purchase a DLO product - that's what they get for being, well, just plain selfish. This is a huge community, with an even bigger extended network. Post in your blogs, email your contacts, notify tech innovation action groups (or if you can't find any... start one!), or write letters to your elected officials. When enough consumers band together they can be a force to be reckoned with. Some serious hurt could be put on DLO's pocketbooks. We are the consumers, drivers of supply and demand. Companies should be doing what we want, not the other way around. DLO is not looking out for us, so why should we look out for DLO?

My next two steps: posting an alert in my blog and reporting the DLO website as "bad" on Outfoxed.

Cordy

Re:Consumer choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you are a plant or you haven't read the forum here that "your fellow slashdotters" have exposed Jack campbell of DVForge.

Re:Consumer choice

[cordelya]

Alas, whoever-you-are, that would be me being unobservant *yet again*. My bad.

Plant? Er.. maybe just human. Funny...

All the same, my point isn't limited to the topic at hand.

Re:Patent "meta-moderation" system: a horrible ide

[Moofie]

What a pretty planet you must live on. What color is the sky?

I'll agree that there are certainly excesses in spending on the military, but all the countries that didn't spend any money on the military don't exist any more.

Re:Patent "meta-moderation" system: a horrible ide

[hairyfeet]

Then why not make it like jury duty?People from all walks of life are chosen at random with 100 looking at each patent.Average the scores. If a random group of people is good enough to decide whether a man lives or dies it should be good enough for a patent moderation.

This is just another publicity stunt

[Ohreally_factor]

Hell, DVforge could spend that $10,000 prize they withdrew for the aborted Hacker Challenge contest.

The thing that no one seems to be aware of is that DVforge, or any other of Jack Campbell's companies, innovate anything, despite claims on the various companies' websites. "Specially Designed for MacMice" usually means "We bought these leftovers cheap from a Taiwan manufacturer and charge you $10 over retail because you are a stupid mac user who is accustomed to paying too much.

Do a google search on Jack Campbell and DVforge, macmice, mactable, mac whispers. You'll find that Jack really has no shame, and that his actions in the past have crossed the line into fraudulent and dishonest. Why would this current case be any different?

DVForge & Jack Campbell

[Invalidator]

The alleged victim in this, Jack Campbell, is well known in the Mac community for business practices that teeter on the edge of legality (http://www.macintouch.com/mactable.html). He has ripped off customers in the past and (allegedly) served time in prison on fraud charges. I would give his tale of persecution all the worth of the paper it is printed on.

which one is violating which?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is rather annoying is that the whole argument that either violates any patents should be addressed with Apple (Ipod maker for it's dock), the inventor of the FM transmitter and subsequently the inventors of the power module for the automobile (referred to as the cigarette lighter). Any one of these inventors could claim that they have a item which only they can invent products for since they hold the patent on the actual interface to any one of them.

I tire from the "he holds this crap overly vague patent and won't let anyone invent a competing product" shit that keeps cropping up and won't let anyone invent anymore, even if it was a new design that did similar features, but wasn't designed after something.

Clearly, the idea of a FM transmitter is nothing new to anyone that comes to /. nor is the idea of a "dock" for the ipod or the electrical connectivity that they use.

I wish we would stop allowing patents and get ahold of this shit before we start having a bigger problem with nothing but LAWSUITS, just like with everything else, sue your way to the top, spineless bitch.

is it a 'firewire port' on the iPod?

[Anonymous Coward]

the text of the patent says "firewire port" on the apple iPod... its not a standard firewire port - and you can plug in a usb cable if you buy one... it may have firewire connectivity, but is it actually a firewire port?

Re:is it a 'firewire port' on the iPod?

[Anonymous Coward]

The hard drive interface is actually firewire - the USB cable isn't really USB - it's just an abstraction.

Re:Patent "meta-moderation" system: a horrible ide

[PHPfanboy]

Oh my God! You've just killed Costa Rica! You bastard. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/central_a merica/costa_rica/history.htm

subcultures

[Anonymous Coward]

there are guys who will take from both ends in small markets.

i was selling an adapter kit to convert old RG(sync)B monitors to work with 'VGA' by mail order and one of these guys ordered a kit, reproduced it, and sold it as his own. he same guy made a living doing this with small niche products such as one finds advertised in the print section of hobby magazines.

these same guys also rebrand or remanufacture, usually with inferior quality, niche products from larger companies.

they are in the position of being too small for the big companies to mess with and too bog for a hobbiest who is trying to make a few bucks to afford to sue.

they're a bunch of unethical assholes, but are generally within the law. copyright and patent gives one a right to protect. it's not protection in itself. for the hobby seller, there's usually not enough money in one product to patent and pursuing copyright on an electronic circuit or a small bit of computer code is way too expensive.

the people who buy from them get whatthey deserve. shoddy, unsupported product and the pleasure of dealing with assholes.

The patent is *wrong*.

[slappyjack]

Why? Because the product is NOT an innovation. Its basically a Mr. Microphone...

for those of us old enough to remember those commercials - Hey, good lookin'! - Mr Microphone was this shitty little microphone that would broadcast a weak FM signal and you could be on the radio! Truly one of the greats of the 1970's.

...and a power converter from your cigarette lighter to plug into your iPod. This is not innovation, and in reality, its not even really clever. Its a bunch of guys that will sell you some electronics that they've soldered together and worked into a nifty molded case. None of these technologies are new in the clightest, nor is the idea of combining them.

Doesn't one of the satellite radio technologies use the same FM transmission method to get the cound to come out of your car stereo?

I almost want to get an iPod just so I can NOT buy one of these things.

Goddamnit, Leeroy...

[slappyjack]

...you are just not smart.

Congrats...

[BlackMesaLabs]

Congratulations DLO, your asshole patent manipulation is now stuck up on the most viewed tech website on earth.
Why, wouldn't it also be the "tech" types who would buy your products?
Another business that has learned the hard way about being socially & ethically responsible.

A Slashdot post : Jack Campbell style

[adzoox]

Wow, this is a first ...

It seems Jack Campbell has managed to fill this thread at the top with plants from different people crying,

I'll never buy another DLO product again

Truth is .. whether this is a broadbased patent or not - it does not make DLO an evil company. Shame on anyone who would say that if they had an invention that they would not protect their intellectual property. ESPECIALLY in this case.

DVForge, could end up being a nightmare for DLO, just as Jack has been to Griffin. There are also SERIOUS security issues here. Jack regularly stalks the Griffin property (his biz is nearby) and he regularly goes to manufacturing sources of competitors and sources identical or similar products with a few asthetic modifactions and MacMice/DVForge stickers placed on them.

Shame on the slashdot mods for not modding down the most recent trolls into -5 troll oblivion!

Watch out for this item

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get blindly ideological, one way or another. This is a company that has played fast and loose with a lot of things. See http://www.apple-x.net/modules.php?op=modload&name =News&file=article&sid=1483&mode=thread&order=0&th old=0/ or http://www.macintouch.com/mactable.html/ This is one of Jack Campbell's companies, and one of his self-promotions.

copyright shmopyright, it's Jack Campbell!

[inchhigh]

Hey just http://www.macintouch.com/mactable.html check this page for partial list of Jack's shenanigans. This new case sounds like a good example of a legitimate copyright beef, and if it keeps another Jack Campbell rip-off from the market, more power to them.

Re:Patent "meta-moderation" system: a horrible ide

[Dun Malg]

Indeed, the lack of funds necessary to run the system properly is disturbing. For every missle used to blow apart an innocent child or woman in Iraq, the US could probably fund three or four full-time researchers to properly assess patent applications.

Nah, those missiles were already sitting on the shelf, and there's no place to turn them in for money after the fact. The US gov't is actually being efficient: using up what it has lying around, rather than just letting it sit there. Remember folks: rotate your munitions! Bomb every 6 months or 3000 miles...

Great, now we have people using /. as a weapon.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a perfect example of why the editors need to responsibly use the power they wield over the /. crowd. Bogus stories such as this can be used to inflame the average /.'er for advancing personal vendettas causing either inconvenience from a resulting slashdotting (of the website and the e-mail of the victim) or more extreme results by spreading FUD about the victim.

All /.'ers need is a touchy subject like patents to create a massive, often unjustified reaction. It is a shame that for a bunch of supposed-intellectuals, basic crowd psychology still applies.

All it takes is a few seconds of research to realize that the PodBuddy is a near-exact replica of the TransPod in all instances save the appearance. It only takes a few more seconds to figure out the legitimacy of anything coming out of DVForge.

Yes, this is likely offtopic, but it has to be said, again and again, until the editors get it right.

Re:My email to DLO

[jamienk]

I'm not a plant, though I may be an idiot (but a subtle, not blantant one). ;)

I am against DLO's tactics 100%, though I admit that I didn't realize that the guy who runs DVForge seems pretty lame.

DLO patented an iPod dock that gets power and charges in your car and broadcasts over FM. I find that highly questionable at best. It refects badly not only on the patent system to approve such as thing, but on DLO as well, to try to block competitors rather than out-doing them.

They didn't invent anything that's worthy of special legal protections. Neither did Apple with the iPod. Neither did the car radio inventor and manufacturer, or the car lighter inventor and manufacturer. These companies are not innovators. They are at best good businesses.

I think my letter was justified, except perhaps for the implications that DVForge is a good company.

Palm should sue DVForge ...

[willtsmith]

Palm should sue DVForge because they've apparently patented the portable device cradle.

This is ridiculous, all those iPaq sleds adding wireless networking would be infringeing under this nonsense.

Next thing you know, someone will patent the CABLE and sue everyone else in the universe.

Fire your lawyer and business unit.

[Anonymous Coward]

First thing you do during product development is patent search. What a moron to develop and apparently manufacture the product without one.

Stop whining. We live under the rule of law, learn the rules and play by them. That's much better than the alternative, trust me.

Re:My email to DLO

[adzoox]

"I think my letter was justified, except perhaps for the implications that DVForge is a good company."

Either way, you did exactly what DVForge plotted with your letter.

Did DLO take advantage of the system? Probably. Do you try to take advantage of any sytem you participate in to maximize profits? Probably. Most likely you do it every April at tax time! You're just hypocritical.

Fishy

[Danta]

Check out this site for some information about the guy behind DVForge.

Executive summary: seems fishy.

DVForge? Apple-x.net sees it as a scam op

[swissfondue]

After reading this article, most people would have "Schadenfreude" about poor Jack Campells trials: http://www.apple-x.net/modules.php?op=modload&name =News&file=article&sid=1483&mode=thread&order=0&th old=0&POSTNUKESID=10769edefecec7b61a24bd85104bd404

Congrats

[mholve]

You just played right into DV Forge's plans.

Re:My email to DLO

[jamienk]

I disagree. You can maximize profits by working hard, being creative, keeping alert, re-investing. You can also maximize proifts by hiring lawyers to intimidate competitors with unjust laws.

I'm in the technology industry. I feel strongly about the freedoms that technologies can give us, but that are under attack by short-sidghted businesses, among others. I don't support Orbitz, for example, since they support adware. This is simmilar, I belive.