Slashdot Mirror
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 :("
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.
Their patent application infringes on my patented way of inducing sleep in children with a text containing over 100 consecutive words without a period.
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.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny