Oprah Sued For Infringing "Touch and Feel" Patent

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Oprah Winfrey, or to be more precise, Oprah's Book Club, is being sued by the inventor/patent attorney Scott C. Harris for infringing upon his patent for 'Enhancing Touch and Feel on the Internet.' So Oprah's Book Club is now one of many people and entities being sued over this patent because they allow people to view part, but not all, of a book online before purchasing it. Mr. Harris also sued Google Books for infringing upon this patent. He actually was fired from his position as partner at Fish & Richardson for that, because Google is a client of that law firm and they had conflict of interest rules to uphold." It would be entertaining to see Oprah give very wide and mainstream publicity to the abuses enabled by our current patent system.

Update: 01/07 22:03 GMT by KD : The blog author Joe Mullin wrote to point out that the lawsuit was not filed by the inventor, Scott C. Harris, but rather by the shell company Illinois Computer Research, which seems to exist for the purpose of filing lawsuits based on this particular patent.

Comments

Would she fight it?

[yotto]

It would be entertaining to see Oprah give very wide and mainstream publicity to the abuses enabled by our current patent system.
 
It's more likely she'd just give him a car.

Re:Would she fight it?

[Capt. Cooley]

Yeah, she's not going to publicize this. It's too technical for the masses, and people have a 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude these days, especially with digital media. I'm thinking she sweeps this under the rug, maybe settles out of court.

Re:Would she fight it?

[_Hellfire_]

It's more likely she'd just give him a car.

Oprah and this guy are in the pre-trial conference...

Oprah: "Look under your seat!"

Re:Would she fight it?

[Dutch Gun]

Yeah, she's not going to publicize this. It's too technical for the masses, and people have a 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude these days, especially with digital media. I'm thinking she sweeps this under the rug, maybe settles out of court.

I really, really hope she doesn't settle this out of court, and does the world a favor by stepping on this rat for everyone to see. It's not like she's on the verge of bankruptcy and can't afford a few dozen high-powered lawyers to launch a counterattack.

This is like hijacking cases. If you give in and pay the money, you'll only encourage more of the same behavior. Send in the Marines / black ops / ninja death squad / pirates of penzance each time it happens, and suddenly it doesn't seem like such a hot idea.

Re:Would she fight it?

[muridae]

While she may be a media icon and corporate power in her own right, do you think her handlers are silly enough to let her counter attack this guy?

She makes money from the media, and the media companies like the current patent and copyright laws. No one in that business is going to step forward and say 'the system is broken.' I hope she does, but I don't consider it very likely.

Re:Would she fight it?

[Panspechi]

And then, the Doomsday Machine goes off?

Re:Would she fight it?

[causality]

While she may be a media icon and corporate power in her own right, do you think her handlers are silly enough to let her counter attack this guy? She makes money from the media, and the media companies like the current patent and copyright laws. No one in that business is going to step forward and say 'the system is broken.' I hope she does, but I don't consider it very likely.

She's in a position where if she does have "handlers", they probably need her a lot more than she needs them.

Also, saying "this is an abuse of the system" isn't necessarily an admission that the system is broken, only that it is imperfect. She could take the stance that fighting this is equivalent to working within the system to correct an abuse of it and that therefore it's not so broken at all. I'm not saying I personally feel this way, only that this is not necessarily the losing proposition you describe.

Re:Would she fight it?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there's a envelope that contains the keys to a classic Ford Pinto with Firestone 500 tires.

Re:Would she fight it?

[pipatron]

Stop mixing patents and copyrights together, It's making people confused. They are completely different, and while the media industry sure likes the copyright system, they have nothing to do with patents.

Re:Would she fight it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oprah has a ninja death squad? Now that's cool...

Re:Would she fight it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oprah: "... Ha Ha! Made you look"

Re:Would she fight it?

[swillden]

She makes money from the media, and the media companies like the current patent and copyright laws.

The media companies like the copyright laws. They have little interest in patents.

The only media-related patent (ab)use I can think of is the DVD-CCA's use of the DVD-related patents to clamp down on non-compliant player manufacturers. With Blu-Ray, they don't even need patents for that, they can simply disable any non-compliant players. With DVD, they had that power, but it was a blunter instrument and they preferred to use legal means (primarily contractual, with the background threat of patent infringement suits).

Re:Would she fight it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop mixing patents and copyrights together, It's making people confused. They are completely different, and while the media industry sure likes the copyright system, they have nothing to do with patents.

Yeppers, no patents ever existed on media formats and player technology. You could sell your own homebrew blu-ray player tomorrow and Sony would wish you the best of luck. Name idea: Homeblue. That one is free.

Re:Would she fight it?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the traditional /. poster's retort. All you people do all day is troll blogs and you get pissed when those that actually create (and then have the audacity to expect restitution for their work) go out and defend themselves.

idiots

Re:Would she fight it?

[wiredlogic]

Remember that she is syndicated through her own company and isn't beholden any network or other big media corp. Also remember that she has become even more successful since she brought Dr. Phil on board and that would never have happened if she hadn't fought the beef industry lawsuit. I wouldn't be surprised if she fights this one too considering that is even more baseless than the beef thing.

Re:Would she fight it?

[Dutch Gun]

While she may be a media icon and corporate power in her own right, do you think her handlers are silly enough to let her counter attack this guy?

You seriously think Oprah has "handlers"? That's a term typically used for managers of brain-dead music or media stars who can perform on stage but otherwise are fairly helpless in the real world without a script. Hint: someone who creates and manages a billion dollar media empire from nothing doesn't have "handlers".

Re:Would she fight it?

[muridae]

That's why I think she is more heavily invested in IP law then anyone else is giving her credit for. I'm not going to confuse patent and copyright, but running her own company I'm certain she can find out which patented technologies they use. But just because she is the one syndicating her show does not mean she isn't beholden to the networks. If she pisses them off, where does her show go? Who gets to watch her if no one will broadcast her? I doubt she's the kind of person to take this kind of crap lawsuit, but what if the major networks want it to be settled and never mentioned again?

Sure, it's a baseless lawsuit. I hope she does fight it, because if she does then it will become as big as the beef thing and people might start paying attention. I just don't think she will.

Re:Would she fight it?

[ScrewMaster]

Stop mixing patents and copyrights together, It's making people confused. They are completely different, and while the media industry sure likes the copyright system, they have nothing to do with patents.

Yeppers, no patents ever existed on media formats and player technology. You could sell your own homebrew blu-ray player tomorrow and Sony would wish you the best of luck. Name idea: Homeblue. That one is free.

I think you misunderstood the GP. He wasn't saying that big media has nothing to do with patents, but that copyright has nothing to do with patents. Pipatron's point was perfectly valid and entirely correct. So was yours, for that matter.

Homeblue ... not bad. Of course, now we're talking trademark law, which is yet another legal subsystem involved with "intellectual property."

Wide?

[Gothmolly]

Did anyone else read that as : "It would be entertaining to see Oprah get very wide" ?

Re:Wide?

[Zorque]

Wide, thin, and wide again, ad nauseam. That's pretty horrible on a person's body, she has to have cut 10 years off her lifespan by now.

Re:Wide?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much wider can she get?
br? I can hear Cartman yelling "beefcake.. BEEFCAKE!"

Re:Wide?

[ngth82]

No, that's just sick. :-D

Re:Wide?

[Anonymous Coward]

she has to have cut 10 years off her lifespan by now,

We can only hope.

Oh, Dr. Phil!

[plover]

Dr. Phil! Touch me! Feel me!

Oh, it's not that kind of lawsuit? Yawn.

Unlikely

[clang_jangle]

It would be entertaining to see Oprah give very wide and mainstream publicity to the abuses enabled by our current patent system.

Yes, that would be entertaining -- but most unlikely. The sad truth is, Big Content is to Democrats as Big Oil is to Republicans. And I didn't see Oprah telling people to vote outside the two party system in 2008.

Re:Unlikely

[jbolden]

This is patent not copyright. Big content would love to see the patent system tightened up. With the possible exception of drug companies and the democrats already hate them.

Re:Unlikely

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I don't see fixing the current patent system as requiring getting a different party in power, though that might be a way to fix that.

If tens of thousands of Opraholics call, write and descend on Capitol Hill, that might scare the legislature sh!tless to fix the patent trolling system.

Re:Unlikely

[torstenvl]

You can't patent content; your post is off-topic, meaningless, and flamebait.

Re:Unlikely

[value_added]

Yes, that would be entertaining -- but most unlikely. The sad truth is, Big Content is to Democrats as Big Oil is to Republicans.

Actually, the pertinent truth is that she is being sued, and if her lawyers are doing their jobs, they've advised her not to say anything publically that would jeapordise her case.

Re:Unlikely

[jonwil]

The big content providers would likely love to see a much looser patent system, then they wouldn't need to pay royalties to the patent holders of e.g. MPEG for all the content they distribute.

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

Well of course not, I mean the choice in candidates was black and white. :D

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to be careful with regard to "loose" and "tight" w.r.t. the patent system. Patent lawyers tend to view a "loose" patent system as one which allows patents on everything and a "tight" one as one that's very restrictive about what can be patented. People who oppose patents (i.e. any sane programmer or engineer) tend to view a "loose" patent system as one that allows a lot of actual progress to be made - i.e. strongly limits what can be patented, and a "tight" patent system as one that is very restrictive to people who want to just get things done - i.e. allows patents (monopoly grants on doing stuff by definition) on everything.

Thus, both sides were initially calling for a "less restrictive" patent system in the european software patent debate, thoroughly confusing politicians - the pro-software-patent patent lawyers and corporate types were talking about a patent system that allowed them to patent more stuff i.e. was less restrictive about what can be patented, and the anti-software-patent software writers and such were talking about a patent system that was less restrictive to people who write software due to not allowing software patents.

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

copyright and patent most certainly are not the same, though the disgusting I"P" propaganda term is certainly designed to make you think they are by lumping them together.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/not-ipr.xhtml

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

IP is IP. The principles are the same.

Yup. Its all a made up fucking word so people don't actually have to think about what the hell is really involved and lobbyists can make people think that ideas can be owned like a physical object or a track of land.

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

copyright and patent most certainly are not the same, though the disgusting I"P" propaganda term is certainly designed to make you think they are by lumping them together.

They're both Imaginary Property, duh!

Re:Unlikely

[arazor]

I think you will find those alignments were just because the republicans were in power. Democrats have the power currently so drug companies will make "allies" with the democrats. Unless for the first time in history ya know the honest politician thing actually happened.

Re:Unlikely

[jbolden]

AC below is correct with regard to how I was using them. We aren't disagreeing on the main point.

Re:Unlikely

[jbolden]

No, copyright patent and trademark all very different.

Re:Unlikely

[Atario]

Please don't go into the differences between "loose" and "tight" in an Oprah thread.

Re:Unlikely

[jbolden]

I wouldn't be so sure. The democrats are strongly committed to bringing down medical costs. Far and away the easiest target is drug prices.

Re:Unlikely

[arazor]

I really hope you are right. But won't believe it til I see it. I voted straight D this election cycle.

Re:Unlikely

[Hognoxious]

Neither copyrights nor patents are about ideas. I suppose that makes them the same, for suitably small values of same.

Re:Unlikely

[swillden]

Actually, the pertinent truth is that she is being sued, and if her lawyers are doing their jobs, they've advised her not to say anything publically that would jeapordise her case.

Public complaints about patent law ridiculousness, with no details of her own case, shouldn't be an issue. There are plenty of other cases to hold up as examples.

I'm not saying she'll do this, but she certainly could approach it in a way that wouldn't jeopardize her own litigation.

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory. The practice nowadays is rather different. Have you read a patent, particularly a U.S. patent lately? Patents are supposedly for implementations, but they basically cover "wouldn't it be cool if?" ideas nowadays, with the "implementation" being a rectangle labelled "computer goes here, with, like a program on it".

Re:Unlikely

[neomunk]

I'm suprised I haven't seen anyone mention the "Touch and Feel" being mentioned in the same title as Oprah. Maybe human brains DO have near-universal filters for some Cthuluesque topics.

Re:Unlikely

[DragonWriter]

Actually, the pertinent truth is that she is being sued, and if her lawyers are doing their jobs, they've advised her not to say anything publically that would jeapordise her case.

Eventually, the case will be over, and win or lose, she'll say plenty about it then. And, being Oprah, plenty of people will listen.

Re:Unlikely

[Hognoxious]

I agree. Thing is, round here there's the "all intellectual property is wrong" crowd and there's the "sticking up for the small guy when google/some university are steals people's ideas" crowd (any story by theodp brings them out like a rash). I'm in a very small minority - i.e. neither, but it wouldn't surprise me much if a lot of people were in both.

they basically cover "wouldn't it be cool if?" ideas nowadays, with the "implementation" being a rectangle labelled "computer goes here, with, like a program on it".

You're right, but if nobody says anything aginst that then people will eventually accept that's how it should be.

HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

He filed a frivolous law suit against....Oprah

Like her or not, she is one of the most influential, and hence powerful, women on the planet.

Of course she will fight it. She will also win. A mouse just picked a fight with a dragon.

 

Re:HAHAHAHA

[MaskedSlacker]

Only in our dreams will he get roasted for it like he deserves though.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ta bu shi da yu]

No, he's going to get roasted. I've been waiting for a patent troll to piss off the wrong person. Looks like that day has arrived. I guess I never thought it would be Oprah Winfrey though.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Valenti and his recent disbarment? It sounds like this guy has a history of getting dumped from law firms after he, through a holding company, drops a patent bomb on him. Maybe it's time this serially unethical behavior was investigated.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[religious freak]

Oprah is very rational in her business decisions, I've studied them a bit. Many times, in these cases, it doesn't make economic sense to hire defense lawyers - cheaper to settle... so I wouldn't count a settlement out. However, if this gains enough publicity (and I think it may have), she'll be forced to fight it, so as not to invite other frivolous lawsuits from those looking for a quick buck.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[multisync]

We'll see. I would tend to think she doesn't need the negative publicity, and she certainly has plenty of money to just pay the guy to go away.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Ethanol-fueled]

Not only Oprah's book club, but GOOGLE and SONY among others! This guy threw away a job with a law firm which had GOOGLE as a client!

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Jeff DeMaagd]

That's the thing though, I'm surprised more companies don't fight the trolls just to get a reputation among trolls that you're willing to go Thunderdome on them on occasion. Then they'll get the message to find someone else to mess with. The way I see it, the only reason patent trolling is profitable is because companies take a short term view of it and just settle, encouraging the prospect of a death by a thousand paper cuts.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[laejoh]

So what you're really saying is that Oprah is Trogdor in disguise?

OPRAH! Burninating the countryside, Burninating the patent trolls. Burninating all the peoples. And their thatched-roof COTTAGES!

Thatched-roof COTTAGES!

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Gerzel]

He may actually have a case.

It is theoretically possible that it is a good case even outside his own head.

It is possible still that he may win and status-quo be affirmed.

Oprah, Sony and Google are all powerful but they also all depend on IP laws themselves.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Gerzel]

The problem is the companies often ARE the trolls.

They just do a slightly different version of trolling.

Fighting sets precedents. precedents set decisions, and while you may want a decision one day the next it will hurt you.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Like her or not, she is one of the most influential, and hence powerful, women on the planet.

When will Americans stop confusing their country with the whole planet? This reminds me of the silly name "World series" for some American baseball tournament. At least for Europeans, the name Oprah hardly even rings a bell, and I'm pretty sure it's the same in most of Asia, Africa, Russia, the Middle East, South America, and perhaps even Australia.

Seriously, less people than you think give a damn about what goes on in your shitty country. Much, much less. The world only cares about what the US does abroad, like war and murder and corruption and exploitation and stuff. TV hosts... not so much.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[zwei2stein]

Like her or not, she is one of the most influential, and hence powerful, women on the planet.

How come i needed to google to find out who this "Oprah" is?

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Sentry21]

This lawyer probably knows a lot more about the law than Oprah does.

On the other hand, Oprah probably knows a lot more about public relations than this lawyer does. Oh, and she could hire most lawyers in the US. Like, all at once.

It's like watching one of those videos on YouTube of rednecks doing stupid shit and then getting hurt. It's good, clean fun, and in the end we're all better off for having learned a valuable lesson from someone less fortunate now than they were 30 seconds ago.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[macraig]

Or as Lou Gramm (or Mick Jones?) once penned: "You got a lion on your hands, boy, not a mouse!"

Re:HAHAHAHA

[macraig]

Even the stuff of science fiction is often theoretically possible, but that's why we have the two distinct words and definitions in the first place:

theory != fact
theory == fact

The ONLY accurate statement you can make is that all facts were once theories. Not all theories become fact, except in the minds of certain delusional people (whom I won't embarrass with labels).

Any rational (and reasonably educated) person recognizes immediately that (a) this twit has no legitimate case against any of the three aforementioned parties and (b) the patent itself is probably illegitimate and invalid. If he persists, he'll probably find himself faced with a posse of IP vigilantes hunting down prior art and calling him out in the town square as a greedy unproductive "useless eater".

For better AND for worse, however, we have an impartial legal system that will be obliged to humor this person and waste much collective human effort just keeping him from unfairly concentrating more wealth in his direction and away from everyone else.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[thodi]

Like her or not, she is one of the most influential, and hence powerful, women on the planet.

s/on the planet/in the USA/

The rest of the world could care less, thank god.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Toonol]

Does your country have a more powerful, wealthy, influential woman? Probably not. Oprah is worth more than a lot of countries. Your lack of knowledge about her is perfectly fine, even reasonable, but that doesn't mean that her importance is being overstated.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[thodi]

Does your country have a more powerful, wealthy, influential woman?

Since "my" country (>= 82 million people, the third largest economy in the world, the largest when it comes to exports, ...) is governed by a woman, I'd say so, yes :-)

Re:HAHAHAHA

[blane.bramble]

Yes, mine does.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Like her or not, she is one of the most influential, and hence powerful, women on the planet.

How come i needed to google to find out who this "Oprah" is?

I guess you aren't american, then. Oprah is a big name there, I think... For me she is pretty much known only of her previously showing great understanding of the internet.

Only in USA would someone call a talk show host with rather specific target audience (middle aged lower middle-class women) to be one of the most influential women on planet and putting her on the same lists as people like Angela Merkel.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[timmarhy]

why don't you try giving us a name?

Re:HAHAHAHA

[El Yanqui]

When will Americans stop confusing their country with the whole planet?

Not for nothing, but what other woman on the planet can rival Oprah? Who do you have in whatever country your anonymously cowarding from? I'm an American living in the UK with a European wife but I haven't seen anything quite like Oprah on this continent. Even Angela Merkel has limited power. God help Germany if Oprah ever told her legions of followers to invade.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Fretje]

there is no such thing as "negative publicity"...

Re:HAHAHAHA

[thodi]

I'll give you even more than that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel

Re:HAHAHAHA

[rolfwind]

Walmart makes it a policy to fight each and every lawsuit to discourage others from taking them on. Settling may be cheaper in the long term, but what if settlements bring out more leeches hungry for a little blood?

Anyway, I'm sick of hearing about patents over common sense shit. It's not the underlying technologies that patented, just the applications they now allow (often internet versions of common real life things). I don't like Oprah all that much, but I hope she crushes this little flea.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[mcvos]

When will Americans stop confusing their country with the whole planet? This reminds me of the silly name "World series" for some American baseball tournament. At least for Europeans, the name Oprah hardly even rings a bell,

Speak for your own corner of Europe. The name Oprah Winfrey most definitely rings a bell in mine.

Oprah is one of the richest, and therefore one of the most powerful women on the planet, simply because money gives you power. Various wealthy queens are also powerful for that reason, even if they don't hold any actual political power.

Oprah is obviously not as powerful as Angela Merkel, but that doesn't stop her from being one of the most powerful women in the world.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[mcvos]

Only in USA would someone call a talk show host with rather specific target audience (middle aged lower middle-class women) to be one of the most influential women on planet and putting her on the same lists as people like Angela Merkel.

She's more than just a talk show host. She's also bloody rich. Besides, there's a lot of middle-class women both in the US and outside it.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't you try giving us a name?

I think he's talking about Angela Merkel, who is quite possibly the single most powerful woman in the world today.

However, that doesn't stop Oprah from being one of the most powerful women today. Besides, Oprah's wealth is her own, Merkel's power is political. She can lose her position at the next election, and then Oprah will still be rich.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Please go read some definition of theory and fact. Facts are PARTS OF a theory.
A theory explains facts.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. If she fights it, it won't be for economic reasons. But that woman has principles too. And she may decide to go for it just to preserve her name. In that case, she'll have to walk a line here, for the fight won't be against the patent troll, but rather will quickly morph into a fight against the US patent office who granted such a patent. It'll quickly become political. Let's hope she is smart enough to handle it to her and our benefit.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

"...doesn't make economic sense to hire defense lawyers..." -- are you fucking serious? do you actually think that The Oprah is feeling the pinch of the recession? what a maroon.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[macraig]

I wasn't referring to those facts... I was referring to the other ones. You know, the truthy ones like the Law of Gravity, the Big Bang, Piltdown Man.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Anna Kournikova?

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Bastard of Subhumani]

the truthy ones like the Law of Gravity, the Big Bang, Piltdown Man.

You din't have the nerve to include evolution, did you? You were probably right because the minute some idiot mentions it there'll be a long offtopic flamewar.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

she is one of the most influential, and hence powerful, women in the USA.

There, fixed that for ya. Venture outside North America some time, and most people will say "huh? Oprah? Who the fuck is that?"

Re:HAHAHAHA

[j-pimp]

God help Germany if Oprah ever told her legions of followers to invade.

First of all, I would have picked Russia to make your point. Secondly, Oprah is not particularly good at getting hey fans to do anything, except maybe vote for Obama.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[j-pimp]

Only in USA would someone call a talk show host with rather specific target audience (middle aged lower middle-class women) to be one of the most influential women on planet and putting her on the same lists as people like Angela Merkel.

Oprah is rich and her target audience is rather huge. The fact that a black single mother managed to become so popular amongst white lower middle class republican voting women, is significant. I say this not because of my prejudices, but the prejudices of those that are her fans.

I know a handful of middle class white women that didn't like it when black people move on their blocks. They love Oprah though. In some cases the black families were significantly more affluent than their own families. She managed to convince these women shes "black but not really black," when someone that lived a few houses down could not accomplish that.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[El Yanqui]

I beg to differ. Do you happen to remember the last time Oprah was sued? There was a show about Mad Cow disease and she made the off-handed comment that it 'stopped her from eating hamburgers'.

Beef sales plummeted the next day and she was sued by the meat industry for defamation. I don't understand the attraction and slavish devotion she engenders in her followers, but she has a hell of a lot of pull.

Germany was picked to contrast her with Merkel but I'm certain her minions would kick Putin's ass on her say-so as well.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[SkyDude]

Oprah is obviously not as powerful as Angela Merkel, but that doesn't stop her from being one of the most powerful women in the world.

Take away her TV program and her "power: would evaporate.

Billy Bulger, the "corrupt midget" as he's been called, was President of the Mass Senate for a number of years. He was thought of as the most powerful man in MA. When he was interviewed by Morley Safer on "60 Minutes", he said "if people think you have the power, you do".

Of course, Oprah doesn't have a gangster brother named Whitey who shot and buried people he didn't like, but really - what power does she exert beyond the television world? She's a good marketer - like Billy Mays.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[hey!]

Except you have to look at the business she is in. Her career is using her life as a kind of laboratory for generating experiences that are novel, but rooted n approachable sentiments and ideas.

In a nutshell, Oprah is a professional middle-brow bohemian.

Doing something that is not entirely sensible because it appeals to a personal sense of what is right is different for her than it would be for you or me. If this makes her mad enough, it's her business to explore her feelings through trying things ordinary people wouldn't.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[emjay88]

Probably hanging out with the ark of the covenant, Joe Smith's golden plates, the city of atlantis, xenu and russel's teapot.

Except that the missing links actually existed at some point.

It still baffles me that people can delude themselves to the point of arguing with evolution and still claiming to know the truth.

Since you clearly believe that everything that has ever lived exists in the ground somewhere, how do you account for the gigantic underestimate of the number of atoms in the universe? Or the way the Earth manages not to collapse into a black hole under the weight of every life form that has existed since the first replicators formed in primordial ooze?

Re:HAHAHAHA

[redxxx]

He filed a frivolous law suit against....Oprah

Like her or not, she is one of the most influential, and hence powerful, women on the planet.

Of course she will fight it. She will also win. A mouse just picked a fight with a dragon.

After quitting his lawfirm so he could sue one of their clients, Google.

The guy's got a pair. I'll give him that.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[maddskillz]

She is far more then a talk show host now, though that is how she got her start.
She has films and magazines and tv shows (Dr Phil, Rachel Ray...)
Also, the target audience is upper-middle class women. And when Oprah talks, these women listen. Just try and get a book out of the library once it's in Oprah's bookclub.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you haven't left your parents basement in 20 years.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Sobrique]

What does a recession have to do with it?

It can 'not make economic sense' to hire a defense lawyer, simply on the basis that the cost of fighting the case might well be higher than the settlement.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Andy_R]

Queen Elizabeth II, and (unless we fix the copyright laws in the next few years) J K Rowling.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[RackinFrackin]

I doubt she will settle, seeing how she dealt with the cattle farmers who sued her in the 90's. On the linked page, Oprah says that the 1998 lawsuit "will not change the way I operate. It has made me even more fervent in my desire and intention to bring information and enlightenment and encourage people in ways that I see fit." That bodes well for this lawsuit.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[nicolas.kassis]

You really don't know wtf you are talking about. Here go read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Kooty-Sentinel]

... as the saying goes: "all publicity is good publicity"

Just look at paris hilton! What did the 'infamous' sex tape do to her? Shot her popularity through the roof!

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

>Like her or not, she is one of the most influential, and hence powerful, women on the planet.

Gravitation does not count as power.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

send them to gaza

Re:HAHAHAHA

[swillden]

Take away her TV program and her power: would evaporate.

Her primary source of power isn't money, it's that people watch/listen to her. Until her power evaporates, no one is going to take away her TV program.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[dlaudel]

Just look at paris hilton! What did the 'infamous' sex tape do to her? Shot her popularity through the roof!

I really hope we don't end up with a similar video featuring Oprah.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[amias]

yes but i'm guessing that most people dont wank over transcripts from patent dispute cases so i
don't think this going to arouse as much interest.

This also leads me to the notion that your score 4 insightfull modding is alluding to the insight that either you suck at idioms or you are patent law fetishist . my money is on the latter ;-)

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they'll say: "oh, that American talk show host" and continue with what they're doing since outside of North America no-one really cares about what talk show hosts think or do.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Skrynesaver]

An interesting workaround for companies in that situation we all know it the USian patent system is broken and hopefully will get rebuilt sensibly in the near future, the patent in question is so broad it should never have been granted.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[hazah]

Your question presupposes that there's something missing. Thus you force to frame an answer on your terms in a way that forces it to be rather weak and uninformative.

I propose that there are no "missing links". The notion thereof is frivolous.

Understand that finding a complete skeleton is rather rare occurrence as most animals are eaten by scavengers when they die. Only sometimes a body is entombed in a way that prevents complete destruction.

Additionally, you're ignoring DNA evidence that clearly points to common lineage with primates.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[CraftyJack]

Oprah will co-opt him somehow. He'll make a few appearances on the show with tech tips or something like that, and then he'll write a book.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[neomunk]

Putin vs Oprah? That makes me think of The Stand. Putin isn't hard to image as an incarnation of Randal Flagg (perhaps with a touch more self-control), and Oprah (compared to Putin) just radiates goodness, much like I viewed the spiritual meta-battle going on in that book.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Oprah is obviously not as powerful as Angela Merkel

I'd even question that. Oprah can sway the choices of a hell of a lot of American voters and consumers. She chooses the focus of attention for 23M people a week.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Angela Merkel.

Who?

Re:HAHAHAHA

[neomunk]

"Bloody rich" is quite the understatement. Look here and check out those numbers below her picture there on the right. Money does translate to power to some degree, and numbers in the form of $xBillion (where x>=1) can get you a whole lot of power.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Hoi Polloi]

Actually she is very popular with woman in the Middle East. In countries like Saudi Arabia copies of her "O" magazine are in great demand.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[religious freak]

Um, rich folks make judgments based on economics of a given situation, irrespective of how the economy is doing. That's how they get rich. The recession has nothing to do with it.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Noexit]

I'd go a step farther and say she's one of the most powerful people in the world, regardless of gender. Does she have a military, no. Industry? No. But she commands a legion of rabid, fervent devotees that would likely march into Hell on her command. And many of those devotees are powerful people in their own right.

Yes, Oprah does scare me a little.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Oprah is a public figure who actually has the ability to bring awareness of patent laws (and how ridiculous they are) to huge number of people who never even /considered/ that patents may affect their lives.

In fact, I hope she loses the case on its merits. If she does, you can be pretty sure that changes to patent law will follow.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[joNDoty]

Speak for your own corner of Europe. The name Oprah Winfrey most definitely rings a bell in mine.

Oprah is obviously not as powerful as Angela Merkel...

Speaking for my own corner of the United States,
"Angela who ?" ;-)

Re:HAHAHAHA

[prelelat]

I'm not sure, we don't know much about this guy do we. What do we know, he was a good enough lawyer to be a partner in a law firm working for google. Also remember that he is a patent lawyer so all of what I know says one of two things.

1) He's an idiot who thought he could make a quick buck off of google and who ever else infringed on his paper thin patent that just seems to be common sense.(I'm not a lawyer but I would argue prior art in the fact that you can touch and feel in a bookstore and it's just another medium to do it)

2) This guy knows what hes doing and there's a reason why he risked his(probably high paying) job to take on this case and this might be one more case of patent abuse.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[darkmeridian]

That's not true. Companies settle because there is typically too much to put in the hands of a relatively uneducated judge and jury, even when you factor in the value of preventing future lawsuits. Patent litigation typically involves a company's most profitable products. Losing a litigation, or even being enjoined from selling the products while the suit is pending, would be disastrous to a company's business. Averting future lawsuits has no value if the current lawsuit bankrupts the company. Also, if you fight to the bitter end and happen to lose, and have to pay a large bounty, there really was no prevention anyway.

In many cases, the risk is simply untenable on any measure for an intelligent company to litigate patents to a verdict. Frivolous lawsuits are typically brought by "non-practicing entities," the polite term for patent trolls, in pro-plaintiff districts such as the Eastern District of Texas. Taking on all of the patent trolls is ridiculous because they only risk their legal fees while the defendant risks their livelihood. For instance, RIM refused to settle a patent infringement lawsuit targeting the Blackberry until the court threatened to shut off all Blackberries in the United States. RIM had to pay NTP $612 million to settle instead of the $20 million NTP was demanding before the adverse ruling. Microsoft lost a patent infringement lawsuit for $1.52 billion that was later reduced on appeal to $500 million. If you assume they could have settled the lawsuit for $10 million, the general counsel who lost the company $490 million would have a hard time explaining how that was worth the prevention, in light of the fact that paying out $500 million encourages even more patent trolls to fuck with you.

In a game theoretical sense, you may want to fight everything to the end. But settlements are usually fair in broad strokes degree because you have businessmen and lawyers calculating the validity and odds of various claims. Otherwise, you have a judge and jury who do not know that much trying to learn the law and the technology deciding the future of your company. If the judge decides to enjoin your product or the jury rules against you for $1 billion, you are shit out of luck.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[SL Baur]

outside of North America no-one really cares about what talk show hosts think or do.

Both Oprah and Jerry Springer are shown on Japanese TV. Or at least they were when I lived there.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[DragonWriter]

We'll see. I would tend to think she doesn't need the negative publicity, and she certainly has plenty of money to just pay the guy to go away.

How is being the victim of an abusive lawsuit "negative publicity"? She could have paid to make the "beef libel" lawsuit go away, too, instead she moved her show to accommodate the trial, fought it, and won, and turned it into plenty of positive publicity.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ckaminski]

If you don't think Oprah doesn't already have a small army of legal trolls on salary, you're deluding yourself. Her people will be ITCHING to tear into this guy.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[multisync]

Just look at paris hilton! What did the 'infamous' sex tape do to her? Shot her popularity through the roof!

Yeah, but I don't see Paris being used to promote the Hilton brand. Oprah is on the cover over every O magazine and is the face of a company worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Even if the publicity wouldn't hurt her, I doubt there is much upside for her in getting involved in a protracted lawsuit. But I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

speak for yourself

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ckaminski]

Supreme Chancellor of the 4th Reich. I mean, PM of Germany? :-P

Re:HAHAHAHA

[chimpo13]

It will be called, "A Day at the Oprah".

Re:HAHAHAHA

[treeves]

"all facts were once theories" Really? What about axioms?

Re:HAHAHAHA

[HiThere]

Sorry, but K Rowling deserves her wealth. She wrote those books and sold them. Copyright protecting her is copyright acting as it should. (Possibly it should only last for 17 years, but will the Harry Potter books be popular then anyway? I wouldn't bet on it.)

Queen Elizabeth is a bit less deserving. (Most of her power and wealth are inherited.) Still, she appears to have been an excellent manager of her family's fortunes, and she doesn't appear to have done poorly by the country, either. (Do remember her limited political power.) As such she should be paid as well as any other good manager. (Unfortunately, it the bad ones that are usually paid the most. Who sets the salaries...)

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy's got a pair.

Not for long.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[hierophanta]

but that wasn't necessarily negative publicity. i mean her entire selling proposition is sex (granted - through a muted enough form to display on TV).

it would be an entirely different thing if she was a school teacher or a politician. would the 'any publicity is good publicity' adage still hold?

just my 2cents

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Chosen Reject]

Does it matter where her power resides? Let's pretend that you are influential over 10 people, I am influential over 100 people. It wouldn't matter one bit if anybody had ever heard of either one of us, I would still be more influential than you. It wouldn't matter if the influence I had on my 100 people affected you or your people in any way, I would still be more influential than you.

Now let's pretend that you and I are the only people in the world that are influential over more than 5 people. That would make you the second most influential person in the world, but me the most influential person in the world. Again, it doesn't matter that our spheres of influence never intersect, or that neither group has even heard of the other.

Similarly, if Oprah has influence over 20 million people (made up number) than you would have to find a woman who has influence over more than 20 million people to find a woman who is more influential than her. Some posters here have suggested Angela Merkel. I'll grant that as PM of Germany, she probably has a fair bit of influence in the world. Then again, the GP didn't claim Oprah was the most influential woman, just that she was one of the most. I think you'd be hard pressed to find enough more powerful/influential women to bump Oprah out of the "one of the most" category.

But again, it doesn't matter where she is. Before today, I had probably heard of Angela Merkel, but she certainly wasn't a known name. Does she have influence over me or anybody around me? I doubt it. Does that change the fact that she is one of the most powerful/influential women in the world? Not one iota.

tl;dr: Your "fix" didn't fix anything at all.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ScrewMaster]

An interesting workaround for companies in that situation we all know it the USian patent system is broken and hopefully will get rebuilt sensibly in the near future, the patent in question is so broad it should never have been granted.

Please stop saying "USian". American will do nicely, thank you.

Overbroad patents are a direct consequence of the USPTO's stance that due diligence on their part is not required, and that it's perfectly okay to let interested parties sort matters out in court later. That's most definitely not okay, though, since that wastes absolutely incredible amounts of time and money, and keeps new products off the market.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[biovoid]

...include evolution...

...some idiot mentions it...

Hmm.. :)

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ScrewMaster]

When will Americans stop confusing their country with the whole planet?

And when will unreasonable, uninformed people like you (who likely has never set foot in America) stop bitching about a common figure of speech. If you don't know someone's language well enough to understand basic colloquialisms, just shut the fuck up. You successfully made yourself out to be an idiot. The GP wasn't claiming that Oprah is so incredibly powerful that she tops the U.N. in influence, just that's she's very influential within his sphere of knowledge. And she is. Furthermore, if the best you can do is to complain about a common expression in American English, you really need to just go away, or get a clue, or something.

Seriously, less people than you think give a damn about what goes on in your shitty country. Much, much less.

Good point ... and do you really think that we give one single, flying fuck about whatever pesthole you come from? Why would you think we care what you (or anyone else, for that matter) thinks about us? Why should we? A couple hundred million Americans have been continuously vilified by vocal assholes like yourself, over actions taken by a very few people at the top of our power structure. Actions that, I might add, are generally very unpopular among Americans in general (perhaps it escaped your attention that our last President has the lowest popularity rating in U.S. history.) I can tell right off that if I said that "all people in {your country} are stupid dumb motherfuckers and that {your country} is a land of pestilence and disease}", you would get all bent out of shape. Yet you have no problem making similar statements about my country. Look, dick, when you start spewing negative generalizations about an entire population you really show yourself to be, well ... a dick. I mean, why pick on us? Why not state (with the same air of authority you exuded in your original post) that all Russians are worthless alcoholics, or that all Chinese men have small penises?

Goddamn trolls. Really, I shouldn't feed them but sometimes it's just so hard to restrain myself.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

"less people than you"

Do you mean "fewer people"?

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

USian is accurate. American is not. America is a large continent that includes countries like Canada and Mexico.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ScrewMaster]

USian is accurate. American is not. America is a large continent that includes countries like Canada and Mexico.

Incorrect. The continent of North America includes Canada and Mexico. America is ... well, America. Says so right in the name: The United States of America. So yes, America it is. I rather imagine you're not from the U.S.: if so, who do you think you are attempting to define the proper appellation for us? That would be like me insisting that people from France are Francians. Now, that might make sense on the surface, but as it happens they prefer to be called French. Who am I to say otherwise?

Furthermore, I guarantee you that Canadians do not consider themselves Americans (although they are certainly North Americans.) Don't believe me? Ask one.

Now, I'm not entirely sure about our friends from the South, who seem to have a rather schizoid view of citizenship these days. But that's a conversation for another time.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ScrewMaster]

"less people than you"

Do you mean "fewer people"?

Honestly, I don't think he has any idea what he means.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ScrewMaster]

Sorry, but K Rowling deserves her wealth.

No argument, but to be fair, we're not discussing whether a particular successful woman deserves her fame and fortune (or not.) This thread is really about whether or not they are well-known outside their countries of origin. I've never heard of Angela Merkel other than in passing, though as an American I've very familiar with J.K. Rowling and her works. Actually, I've watched some interviews with her ... seemed very down to earth.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Eskarel]

That's technically true, however it doesn't really apply to Oprah.

Oprah's very influential, and her product is herself. If she has to shutdown or redesign her website she doesn't really care, but this'll put her in the news a lot again, and for her that's not a bad thing. It's not like she's on trial for murder or some other crime which will impact her reputation.

Add to that the fact that she depends on copyright, not on patents so precedents in that area cost her nothing, and she's pretty much got nothing to lose by fighting it.

That doesn't mean she will, but there's no real cost to her in doing so.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ScrewMaster]

I wasn't referring to those facts... I was referring to the other ones. You know, the truthy ones like the Law of Gravity, the Big Bang, Piltdown Man.

If nothing else, Colbert will be remembered for his contribution of "Truthiness" to our lexicon.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Eskarel]

Oprah is a lot more powerful than the PM of Germany, at least so long as she retains her show(as the PM of Germany is powerful so long as she retains her job).

Oprah has legions of fans in quite a number of countries. They may be mostly housewives, but realistically there are enough of them to swing elections. Oprah, if she had a good enough reason, could probably convince enough people to vote a certain way to choose the president of the US, and likely the prime ministers of the UK and Australia.

She's never done that, and I can't guarantee she could, but considering the reason she got sued by the beef industry is that when she bad mouthed beef enough people stopped eating it to scare the crap out of the beef industry(and this is Americans and beef).

Just because Oprah can't fire a nuke doesn't mean she doesn't have influence, very few politicians in the English speaking world could afford to really piss her off, and whether you like it or not, the politicians in the English speaking world have power than the leaders of pretty much every other country in the world(China and Russia being realistic exclusions).

For better or for worse, what the US does impacts the entire rest of the world. You can pretend that's not the case, but it's still true.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ElDaffo]

Oprah scares me. If it doesn't go well for her, I can imagine her saying to the studio audience "Everybody reach under your seat, there you should find an AK-47. NOW LETS TAKE THIS FIGHT TO THESE PEOPLE!!" Everyone would do it too, she's scary.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ElDaffo]

Incorrect. The continent of North America includes Canada and Mexico. America is ... well, America. Says so right in the name: The United States of America.

But America still isn't the name of your country, it is (as you point out) two continents. Your countries' name is the creatively inspired "United States of America". That is, there's a bunch of states on those continents that united, and hey, why don't we just make that the name.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Meski]

Oprah touched and felt! Oh, the humanity!

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Meski]

the truthy ones like the Law of Gravity, the Big Bang, Piltdown Man.

You din't have the nerve to include evolution, did you? You were probably right because the minute some idiot mentions it there'll be a long offtopic flamewar.

That's what you jerks like to do - call us who know the truth jerks.

Tell me smart guy - why hasn't the "missing link" ever been found? Prehistoric people have been found, dinosaurs have been found, but where is the infamous missing link?

FFS! If it was found, it wouldn't be a missing link! Sheesh.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Meski]

Oprah scares me. If it doesn't go well for her, I can imagine her saying to the studio audience "Everybody reach under your seat, there you should find a gift. Unwrap it. NOW LETS TAKE THIS FIGHT TO THESE PEOPLE!!"
Everyone would do it too, she's scary.

Fixed it.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Meski]

I'm thinking of SCO here.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Meski]

An interesting workaround for companies in that situation we all know it the USian patent system is broken and hopefully will get rebuilt sensibly in the near future, the patent in question is so broad it should never have been granted.

Please stop saying "USian". American will do nicely, thank you.

Unless you're using the ugly constructs USian and THEMian, I agree. I'd like to see an endian of such abuse.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Meski]

It's their country, I'd let them call themselves what they like, without getting caught up in grammar. There are many similar exceptions around the world, I'll let you do the googling to find them. Xerox[1] me a copy when you do :^) [1] a related example.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[mcnellis]

As I understand it, many natives of South America like those in Chile or Argentina do call themselves Americans and do get pissed that the US thinks it's the only country in one of the Americas

Re:HAHAHAHA

[JAlexoi]

The french prefer to be called franÃais. You insensitive brit-descendant!

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Walzmyn]

Now, I'm not entirely sure about our friends from the South, who seem to have a rather schizoid view of citizenship these days. But that's a conversation for another time.

It's the other way around. They think America (the USA) is Mexican.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea how rare fossils are?

Consider how many of various creatures existed over time, then consider how many fossils of them we have found.

Now consider how short a period of time that the missing link would have existed and how many of them there would have been.

The odds of finding fossil record of the missing link are fantastically improbable.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ScrewMaster]

The french prefer to be called franÃais. You insensitive brit-descendant!

I know, but I also knew that Slashdot wouldn't render the special characters correctly. So I settled for "French".

Re:HAHAHAHA

[tanner_andrews]

The GP wasn't claiming that Oprah is so incredibly powerful that she tops the U.N. in influence,

I'd have a hard time making a compelling case that the Soil and Water district did not top the U.N. in actual power.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what exactly is the point of going through stories that aren't even on the front page any more and modding comments Overrated? Did you just get mod points and decide to settle some old scores?

Here's a link you should really read.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ScrewMaster]

That is, there's a bunch of states on those continents that united, and hey, why don't we just make that the name.

Yes, and after some 240+ years ... the name stuck. There are more important issues in the world that what Americans choose to call themselves. Get over it.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ScrewMaster]

As I understand it, many natives of South America like those in Chile or Argentina do call themselves Americans and do get pissed that the US thinks it's the only country in one of the Americas

Um ... so?

Re:HAHAHAHA

[mcnellis]

So maybe we should stop being such arrogant pricks to the world and then maybe they wouldn't hate us so much? That is only if you care about world opinion, which I think is important for foreign relations. Also it's good to know if you go visit a country down south to know not to call yourself an American because that's not descriptive (enough) to them.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ScrewMaster]

That's fine, but you didn't answer my question. In any event, they're welcome to use the term any way they see fit, and so are we. Honestly, I know few Americans (that is, United States citizens) that are bothered by anyone from a country in one of the Americas that calls himself an American. They're entitled to do so, just as we are. If that bothers them so much, there's little I can do about it. I'm not going to lose much sleep over it. And if my fellow Americans are pricks, that's their problem. When I'm in another country, I do my best not to offend anyone ... that's just reasonable. However, I have known many foreign nationals that don't offer us the same consideration when they visit our country, so your dislike for your fellow Americans is unjustified. There are pricks everywhere, and many of them are far more obnoxious than we are.

I have news for you, not all people of other countries treat outsiders which any great courtesy. I've known a few Europeans who consider ALL Americans to be gauche and uncivilized. Doesn't matter who you are: if you're from the U.S. you're a boor who doesn't deserve the time of day. How's that for being an arrogant prick. I've also known many who were quite the opposite. So this crap of claiming that all Americans treat foreigners like shit is starting to get old. Some of us do, sure, but not all of us. Not even the majority.

The reason that some people in the world "hate us" is not because all Americans are pricks when they go to visit (after all, they have no problem taking our tourist's money.) It's because our government has made choices in our name that have pissed them off. If you hate someone because of their race or nationality, and only for that reason, then you're a mental defective and frankly I don't care what you think.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ScrewMaster]

But America still isn't the name of your country

Yes it is. We can call ourselves any thing we wish and there isn't anything you can do about it. Why does this bother you so?

Re:HAHAHAHA

[ScrewMaster]

To whom it may concern: some of you are misusing your mod points. If you don't agree with me, fine, post a rebuttal. Otherwise cut it out and go review the moderator guidelines again.

Uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon me sir, but... um... what the hell does that have to do with suing over a patent?

Someone mod this joker down. I've heard some idiotic partisan stereotypes, but this really takes the cake.

What about Amazon?

[JWman]

Amazon does book previews as well... does this fall under the "Touch and Feel" patent?
If so, than Harris would be suing about as many people as SCO (at least in terms of high-profile companies).
Hmmm an individual filing a spurious lawsuit against Oprah, Google, and Amazon that has already cost him his job...Nice try.

Re:What about Amazon?

[Cor-cor]

...an individual filing a spurious lawsuit against Oprah, Google, and Amazon that has already cost him his job...Nice try.

No shit. Do they still have any form of debtor's prison around?

How about fail-at-life prison?

No and...

[RuBLed]

we saw what you did here.

This is a title, since I must have one

[greentshirt]

Republicans always find a way to blame something on Democrats. Democrats always find a way to blame something on Republicans. Jews kill Arabs, Arabs kill Jews, people sue over patent infringement and lawyers are often assholes. Oprah seems too busy talking about getting fat again (and acting like it's some kind of horrible fate worse than death) to really do much publicizing of anything else. Tonight on Larry King live, he had 3 guests, Oprahs personal trainer, her spiritual adviser and some other guy, talk at length about GASP, OPRAH GETTING FAT. What the hell is wrong with our world, I don't know where to begin anymore.

Re:This is a title, since I must have one

[slugtastic]

What the hell is wrong with our world, I don't know where to begin anymore.

Wasn't it always like that? Just this time nothing horrible happened to televize about it and shock the masses.

Re:This is a title, since I must have one

[multisync]

Tonight on Larry King live, he had 3 guests, Oprahs personal trainer, her spiritual adviser and some other guy, talk at length about GASP, OPRAH GETTING FAT. What the hell is wrong with our world, I don't know where to begin anymore.

Meanwhile, the new season of Biggest Loser debuted tonight as well. Maybe they should do Biggest Celebrity Loser!

Re:This is a title, since I must have one

[McGiraf]

"Tonight on Larry King live, he had 3 guests, Oprahs personal trainer, her spiritual adviser and some other guy, talk at length about GASP, OPRAH GETTING FAT. What the hell is wrong with our world, I don't know where to begin anymore."

TV != World.

I do not watch TV. So I can't judge of the state of the world by watching Larry King show. There is not much Oprah in my world, fat or thin.

Re:This is a title, since I must have one

[Seriousity]

But don't worry, all Oprah has to do is ask the universe to take away her weight! She knows the Secret
With the Law of Attraction, Oprah and anyone else who is willing to blindly fork out their money is GOD*

1. *Any comparison to omnipotent, omniscient or all-knowing deities is unintended.
2. **Neither Oprah Winfrey or The Secret co. are responsible for any psychological damage incurred from the use of The Secret.
3. ***If you believe in the "law [sic] of attraction", I have a small bridge for sale in Pennsylvania, special price just for you.

Re:This is a title, since I must have one

[shotgunefx]

You know, maybe it's inane, but you really can't blame her. She's made quite a living off of it.

Besides, she need it for financing StedMAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQMQ7Usqisg

Re:This is a title, since I must have one

[mdielmann]

There is not much Oprah in my world, fat or thin.

Trust me, there's more of her in your world than there was 6 months ago.

Re:This is a title, since I must have one

[Locklin]

I just love when people think everyone should know that they don't watch TV.

Everyone! I don't read billboards. Please make it known that I don't read billboards. I just thought everyone should know. Tell your friends!

Re:This is a title, since I must have one

[McGiraf]

Thanks for the input, it's very much appreciated

Re:This is a title, since I must have one

[Anonymous Coward]

Using the Law of Attraction to lose weight?

Something does not seem right with that.

Re:This is a title, since I must have one

[crocodill]

Like this guy? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694

Only in America.

[joocemann]

The land of too many lawyers without enough viable work to find.

Oh the opportunities that have been missed or shut down for fear of litigious people and the grinning lawyers that represent them.

As true as this is, I will probably be modded a flamer.

Re:Only in America.

[exley]

-1, Gay

Re:Only in America.

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Colorful

Re:Only in America.

[Sentry21]

In this economic depression, it only makes sense for people with no skill or talent to take money from companies that actually provide tangible benefits to society and take part in our economy in exchange for doing no work and little forethought.

The American patent system is designed to reward inventors, even if they never have any intention or desire to make anything of their patent, by ensuring that anyone can patent anything. As a result the secret to success, like in relationships, is finding your perfect match. They're out there somewhere, and they're infringing on a patent that any sane person could come up with over a pint of Guinness and a plate of chips. Go get what you've earned, tiger!

Re:Only in America.

[tehcyder]

I don't think you're likely to be modded down for insulting lawyers on slashdot.

Re:Only in America.

[hobbit]

+1, Inane Yet For Some Reason Still Successful Reverse Psychology

Re:Only in America.

[Anonymous Coward]

+1, Spuds

Re:Only in America.

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't read the article, but according to the summary, the _lawyer_ holds this software patent.

I seriously doubt he does any software, and that he is a professional patent troll.

I'm in favor of litigation. It has its flaws but in the end it keeps society civil and honest. But I think its time that the US adopts what many countries have in Europe where if the initiator of a suit loses, they have to pay the suee's (sp??) legal expenses, or something similar.

Basically, our system promotes fishnet kinds of lawsuits. I mean, if you lose 100 law suits in a row each for $1mil, and you win one, that still seems like a profitable adventure to me.

Re:Only in America.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you're likely to be modded down for insulting lawyers except Ray Beckerman on slashdot.

FTFY.

Re:Only in America.

[joocemann]

I completely agree. I think by putting serious consequence on the plaintiff if the case does not prevail it would serve to hinder many litigious buffoons from going forward.

I don't know if we'll ever see that here in the US. All our politicians are ex-lawyers or answer to lawyer lobbies; like they would represent the people and their best interest instead... *sigh*

Re:Only in America.

[wiredlogic]

+1 Fabulous

Re:Only in America.

[tanner_andrews]

I don't think you're likely to be modded down for insulting lawyers on slashdot.

At least not when we do not have any mod points with which to moderate you back down into the mud.

Summary of the patent

[Michael Woodhams]

I've just skimmed the patent. The basic situation is they have the entire book on computer, you can choose any pages to view, but once you've viewed a certain number, it won't let you view any more. There was also a bit of stuff about supplying image and text in different formats/resolutions, and (I think) using keys to scroll around the image of one page.

How do they know that it is you, not someone else asking for more pages? They specifically include the use of cookies, but allow for other methods. There is no mention of (e.g.) using IP addresses, but I expect this would be covered. The interesting problems (How do you know the user isn't deleting the cookies? How do you know whether there are 200 people behind that single IP address?) are not addressed.

IANAL, and I didn't read it carefully, so I might be wrong about some details.

Re:Summary of the patent

[russotto]

It doesn't really matter whether the method disclosed in the patent is very good or not.

What does matter is whether or not the patent is valid. That is, of patentable subject matter, and novel, non-obvious, and useful. It's certainly useful (even if there are ways around it). It would appear to be of patentable subject matter. Some if it is certainly not novel, however -- several of the claims describe things web servers and browsers have been doing since the early '90s (and Compuserve and AOL and likely others prior to that!). Even giving the rest of the claims the benefit of the doubt and saying they were novel 2000(though it's quite possible they were not), they're not non-obvious. They describe doing an ordinary thing (previewing a book over the web) using ordinary techniques.

Re:Summary of the patent

[Theaetetus]

How do they know that it is you, not someone else asking for more pages? They specifically include the use of cookies, but allow for other methods. There is no mention of (e.g.) using IP addresses, but I expect this would be covered. The interesting problems (How do you know the user isn't deleting the cookies? How do you know whether there are 200 people behind that single IP address?) are not addressed.

True, they're not addressed, but they don't necessarily need to be. You don't have to solve every problem in a patent - otherwise, you could never have improvements on prior technology.

Most interesting thing, I think, is that the claims are broad enough to cover 2D representations, though the first half of the description is pointed towards 3D representations. Since this isn't a divisional application, it makes me suspect that there were 3D claims previously but they were rejected.
Remember - the invention is what's in the claims, not what's in the description or abstract.

/disclaimer: I am a patent agent, but I'm not your patent agent. All information herein is off-the-cuff and solely opinion.

Re:Summary of the patent

[Theaetetus]

Even giving the rest of the claims the benefit of the doubt and saying they were novel 2000(though it's quite possible they were not), they're not non-obvious. They describe doing an ordinary thing (previewing a book over the web) using ordinary techniques.

But that's not the invention claimed... The invention involves having a counter, incremented by some pages and non-incremented by others, and delivering images only until the counter exceeds some threshold.
While yes, it's "previewing a book", it's a lot more than that, and limited to the "more than that". Previewing a book in a normal sense would not infringe, and I'm surprised Google settled, though it may have been because the lawsuit was getting out of hand in terms of claims and counterclaims between added parties.

Re:Summary of the patent

[russotto]

But that's not the invention claimed... The invention involves having a counter, incremented by some pages and non-incremented by others, and delivering images only until the counter exceeds some threshold.

Yes, those would be the "ordinary techniques". Or, if you prefer, it's a case of "patenting the goal": "Let them see a quarter of the book, plus the sample chapters".

Re:Summary of the patent

[Theaetetus]

Yes, those would be the "ordinary techniques". Or, if you prefer, it's a case of "patenting the goal": "Let them see a quarter of the book, plus the sample chapters".

Sure, but was anyone doing that prior, or was it just "here's the sample chapters, to see any others, you need to buy the book"?

Re:Summary of the patent

[Eristone]

I doubt this was novel in 2000 (when the patent was filed)- Sherman, set the Wayback Machine to December 1998. The place: www.baen.com. Sample Chapters and the like were available as described in the patent at least 2 years prior to it's being filed. I think that qualifies as prior art.

Re:Summary of the patent

[Theaetetus]

I doubt this was novel in 2000 (when the patent was filed)- Sherman, set the Wayback Machine to December 1998. The place: www.baen.com. Sample Chapters and the like were available as described in the patent at least 2 years prior to it's being filed. I think that qualifies as prior art.

You'd be wrong, then. Sample chapters were how everyone was doing it... But this patent isn't for "sample" chapters, it's for putting the entire book online and letting visitors view n number of pages. Sure, chapter 1 is going to be what most people read, particularly for novels, but if the book is a textbook or biography or history, a visitor might want to check out the first page or two of every chapter, or flip through for a few diagrams, or maybe look at the index, etc.

Remember, to qualify as prior art for novelty, the prior art has to have all of the limitations of the claimed invention. Sample chapters simply doesn't cut it.

Prior Art?

[mutantSushi]

This is the operating procedure of an Ice Cream shop. Yes, you can sample this. That too. That. That.... But once you've had "enough" samples, you need to buy something. So the only specifics he's proposing in the patent are: Using Cookies exactly how browser cookies are supposed to be used. I hope Oprah makes a show out of this, and connects it with the rest of the IP-ocracy. Y'know, invite on some poor moms sued by the RIAA, farmers fucked by GMO-Corps, doctors from 3rd world countries that can't afford the drug mafia's prices...

Re:Prior Art?

[Kalriath]

This is the operating procedure of an Ice Cream shop.
Yes, you can sample this. That too. That. That....
But once you've had "enough" samples, you need to buy something.

So, essentially, this patent is... "Something that's already happened for hundreds of years... on the internet"

Re:Prior Art?

[lordSaurontheGreat]

Amen. When Oprah goes for blood, she goes straight for the jugular.

I remember when she read Elie Wiesel's book Night... she did a huge show on it, went to Germany and toured the concentration camps, talked with the author, and really did her best to show exactly the face of evil.

I hope she tries to show the face of corruption and incompetence in the patent system. If anyone in America has the audience and the skills to effectively portray this to the public, it'd be Oprah.

Re:Prior Art?

[SMS_Design]

It's also the same idea as a bookstore.

Read a bit of the book. Get a feel for it. Don't sit there and read the WHOLE damn thing, though.

Re:Prior Art?

[Theaetetus]

This is the operating procedure of an Ice Cream shop. Yes, you can sample this. That too. That. That.... But once you've had "enough" samples, you need to buy something. So the only specifics he's proposing in the patent are:

... transmitting a plurality of images from a server to a client over a network responsive to a request unless a request threshold has been reached.

If your ice cream shop isn't using a server, network, or plurality of images representing pages of a book, then it's not prior art.

Re:Prior Art?

[jc42]

It's also the same idea as a bookstore.

And, of course, if this sort of lawsuit succeeds, it's only a mater of time before publishers are suing bookstores for allowing people to open books and read a few pages.

I've also read a few comments from publishers about the problem they have with public libraries, which openly and brazenly let people read entire books without paying for them. Some publishers are seriously considering that they might be able to use the lawsuits over P2P downloads to shut down libraries, or at least impose a royalty on them for every book checked out.

Re:Prior Art?

[Anonymous Coward]

farmers fucked by GMO-Corps

As opposed to starving third world citizens fucked by people who want their industry bailed out when there's a better alternative.

If it weren't for genetically modified food about two billion people would have to die. Farmers complaining about GM foods are no better than the RIAA complaining about digital distribution.

Of course I'm sure everyone who opposes GM foods would, if we got rid of them, volunteer to be among the first to starve, right?

Oprah will settle out of court

[tg123]

Yes it will come down to business -

The question will be - Is it worth the cost of defending this in court or should we settle?

There is also the question of P.R. a court case could dig up something dirty and Oprah has a spotless image.

Throw enough Mud and it sticks !!! (Bad Oprah)

going on past court cases most large companies like to settle out of court. I cant see why this will be any different.

01101011 01101001 01100011 01101011 00100000 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 00100000 01101111 01110000 01110010 01100001 01101000 00100000 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100101 01100001 01110011 01100101

The story of Scott C. Harris

[Anonymous Coward]

Scott C. Harris looked out his window. It was dark, he saw the change in the air... the streets, which were once full of people going about their daily lives, were now full of protesting people wanting to tare down his doors. The system of product protection which he had faught so hard to uphold, was in tatters. Thousands who had been sued by the actions resulting in his hard work were now at his....

[Click here to purchase this story]

Why Oprah won't become a patent reform spokeswoman

[istartedi]

...at least, not initially.

Her lawyer will tell her not to comment on the case, and she will follow that advice. She's not stupid.

However, once the dust is settled it might get more interesting. Some other posters were speculating that "big content" it to Democrats what "big oil" is to Republicans. Perhaps that's true; but this is a patent case we're talking about. Big Content is fueled by copyright, not patents. I don't watch Oprah. Has she tackled pharma companies in the past? That might provide some clue as to whether or not she'll become an advocate for patent reform.

Australians know her

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't she that fat black American with a women's talk show?

Re:Australians know her

[fmoliveira]

Also mostly unknown here in Brazil. Never seen her show, only know her name from the internets.

The Root

[lordSaurontheGreat]

When will we start fixing the root of the problem: suing and firing moron patent officers that grant amazingly stupid patents, followed by investigations and possible nullifications of the patents they have granted?

Fight the war on two fronts: kill the patent trolls, and also fire the idiots who keep feeding them!

Seriously, I know a lot of bullshit must come across their desks at patent offices, but you would think that they'd have figured out how to assign patents of specific types to specialist patent officers. Larry on floor three does digital patents, Ed on floor two does software patents. Some of these patents look like they've been granted by juries that have been allowed to be brainwashed by RIAA lawyers into thinking that 1 + 1 = patent. Are our patent officers being bribed to grant stupid patents? Are they themselves stupid or incompetent?

I want blood! (Or at least sufficient litigation and layoffs to fix the problem).

Re:The Root

[pimpimpim]

In europe you have some pretty hefty tests specific to your area of expertise before you can even become a patent officer. Still, this doesn't stop stupid patents to pass. Work pressure is too high, there are just way too many patents going along. Come to think of it, it just means that there are not enough patent officers to handle all patents. Basically that, and most of our other patent-related problems, can only exit because patents are too cheap. If the price of patents would go up it would probably be possible to hire more patent officers to reduce the workload, and maybe companies and people would think twice before getting their ininnovative ideas out as a patent. Probably the patent is currently used as a measure of workflow, a bit like lines of code. Useless measure for the actual performance of a company, but it's a number so it's used anyway.

Re:The Root

[lordSaurontheGreat]

Yes, but the main purpose of a patent according to liberals is to allows the proverbial "little guy" to claim his idea and fight "the man" (the really big corporations).

By increasing the cost required to patent an idea, you're destroying the patent's perceived use to the millions of non-corporate non-megalomanic people.

It's getting to the point that there are so many problems with the patent system and the way it's being abused by corporations that it might become better for the economy to completely dissolve the patent system. If the corps don't behave themselves, why should we continue to put up with their bullshit?

Re:The Root

[Theaetetus]

Seriously, I know a lot of bullshit must come across their desks at patent offices, but you would think that they'd have figured out how to assign patents of specific types to specialist patent officers. Larry on floor three does digital patents, Ed on floor two does software patents.

Yes, they're called Art Units and they've been in existence at the USPTO for more than a century. Biologists review biology patents. Electical engineers review electrical engineering patents. Remember, though, at least theoretically these are new inventions. You can't expect the examiner to be an expert on an idea that someone just invented and no one in the field had come up with previously.

Mod "Insightful", not "Funny"

[zooblethorpe]

Regardless of the underlying ironic humour in the parent post, Kalriath really comes across (to me at least) more as insightful than funny. This case is another prime exemplification of how bizarre the legal situation becomes once any activity takes place via the internet, as if engaging in business online somehow changes everything (beyond just the medium of exchange).

Cheers,

Touch and Feel and Internet?

[Plutonite]

Excuse me for not reading the summary, but doesn't this all sound like fertile ground for very very bad jokes? Why hasn't anyone made them so far? I am shocked, and cannot believe slashdot humor is improving so quickly. Something must be wrong.

Re:Touch and Feel and Internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting for the lawsuit for the 'scratch and sniff' patent.

over 9000?

[piepkraak]

He doesn't forgive doesn't and forget and has over 9000 patents!

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

http://bubsandbaxter.com/strips/006.html

Shameless Oprah bashing comic.

You have ignored the otherside of that idea

[arse maker]

Sure, they maybe getting a reputation of being people who settle out of court.. but imagine if they fought and lost. It would be huge. Can they risk that? Im sure its an important part of their risk management assesment when deciding what to do.

The increased payout for a loss, the increased publicity showing your company losing, breaking the law. Its a huge risk to take, while its easy to think these cases are thin and you cant lose, thats not true, just check the news.

Enough !!!

[daveime]

This is friggen bullshit !!!

Every weekend I go to National Bookstore at the shopping mall, and browse through the new releases ... before I buy any book, I'll want to read at least the prologue, introduction OR cover ...

Are you telling me I'm infringing on someones patent if I do the exact same thing online ?

How do these patents get allowed ?

Re:Enough !!!

[Spamalope]

Every weekend I go to National Bookstore at the shopping mall, and browse through the new releases ... before I buy any book, I'll want to read at least the prologue, introduction OR cover ...

The back of those same books frequently adds the first chapter of another of the authors books as a teaser.

This is another patent of normal business practices but this time 'on the intarweb'.

Next stop: eBay!

[Drakkenmensch]

Take a few pictures of the item you sell, add them to your auction description and VOILA! Instant patent infringement! These patents are getting more and more absurd by the day, I tells ya. Penny Arcade had it right: http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/1/2/

prior art

[Dale512]

Couldn't movie trailers be considered prior art to nullify this?

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out
http://www.baen.com/scheduleXML.asp
they have been doing this since the '90's

Thought this was about Opera Web Browser

[Yarcofin]

Upon first read of the title, I thought the Opera web browser was being sued. I'm much less disappointed now.

Re:The Root == The Money Trail

[tekrat]

If you really want to get to the "root of the problem", start shooting lawyers. If you follow the money trail, it really seems this entire situation was set up so that there would be MORE lawsuits, in which case, it's the lawyers that benefit in general.

All of american society is being screwed, to the benefit of the ruling class, aka lawyers. I'm sure it was a lawyer who first proposed ridiculous patenting of obvious ideas "on the itarweb", and it's lawyers who vigorously defend idiots who think they are going to get rich because they hold the patent for "breathing air while browsing".

And in the end, the only people making money off this completely screwed up situation are the lawyers.

Re:Why Oprah won't become a patent reform spokeswo

[swillden]

Her lawyer will tell her not to comment on the case, and she will follow that advice. She's not stupid.

That wouldn't prevent her from commenting about the state of patent law in general, and using other cases to make the point. She could also ask her attorneys to vet everything she says on the subject to make sure it won't be a problem.

If she wants to talk about it, the legal situation is an obstacle to be worked around, it's not a showstopper.

Easy to overturn this patent

[Frightened_Turtle]

For more than a century, it has been standard practice for publishing companies to receive manuscripts in the form of three sample chapters and an outline of the rest of the work in progress. This was done in whatever media was available. I'm sure by the 90's, there were manuscripts being delivered via email in this format.

So it is an obvious practice to carry this to the consumer. How often do you get samples of food in the grocery store? Sample packets of some skin product in the mail? There is so much "prior art" and the use of the internet is so obvious using this practice. Offering the consumer the opportunity to sample a couple chapters of the book. O'Reilly Press and Amazon have been offering this for years without anyone pouncing them for some patent about this practice.

I'd bet it probably wouldn't take more than a few minutes in court no invalidate this guy's patent claims. (Naturally: IANAL)

You go girl.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It would be entertaining to see Oprah give very wide and mainstream publicity to the abuses enabled by our current patent system."

Housewives everywhere would be speechless over the abuses of the patent system.

Yes, but ...

[Johnny00]

What's Pamela over at GrokLaw have to say about it?

Re:Yes, but ...

[Bilbo]

Not sure if you're serious, or if this is the new type of, "Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of those [fill in the blank]?" ... but seriously, PJ is taking a well deserved rest, after finally coming to the conclusion that the SCO train-wreck has pretty much come to an end. (They lost, but are now trying to appeal. Go figure...)

Groklaw has covered IP issues in the past, but I don't think this one has hit their radar yet (mostly because the radar is sort of turned off.)

He might have an interesting case...

[gwolf]

Yes, under the current patent infrastructure, he might have a legally sound case. And he might even win. This only proves (further) that the current scheme has gone nuts.
I hope some people take note on this, and push towards reforming the patent system. In my book, this would clearly sound as an obvious thing, not even an invention... Still, a patent was granted.
However, I do not hold very high hopes on it. I think this will be silently ignored. If anything, many media people will say, "oh, I didn't know I had to check for my ideas first". They will proceed on checking each of their ideas with costly patent-oriented lawfirms - It is not like they have ideas very often!

Re:He might have an interesting case...

[everett]

For an insight in to the caliber of people working at the USPTO I refer you to this story of an interview that a graduate of Carnegie-Mellon recounted. These people really have no clue.

Re:He might have an interesting case...

[Repossessed]

His case is, in my not actually a lawyer opinion, completely bogus. The patent would likely be tossed out. Eventually. The catch is, it'd take ~5 million to do so, and he's probably more than happy to settle for 3 million. This is the very nature of patent trolling.

Re:He might have an interesting case...

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes but Oprah is a bitch, is probably wondering what the fuck is wrong with this guy, will probably wonder what the fuck is wrong with the system, and either A) get very noisy about it; or B) lose, and get even noisier about it. If she honestly thinks his patent is retarded, and the thought that he's proposing to protect her from $$$$$ damage for a small payment of $$$, she'll immediately start spewing garbage about mafia protection money... she's Oprah, that's what she does, see Rainbow Party....

die oprah (whore)

[Anonymous Coward]

Oprah is nothing more then a dumb dirt nigger from podunk.

169 comments so far and ..

[rs232]

169 comments so far and I've read nothing of value so far, if only Groklaw was back we could actually find out something relevant about the case ..

CANNOT RESIST....

[avtchillsboro]

So...umm...a waist is a terrible thing to mind??

Oprah publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be entertaining to see Oprah give very wide and mainstream publicity to the abuses enabled by our current patent system.

Welcome to this week's Oprah Patent Club...

Fact != Theory

[severoon]

The ONLY accurate statement you can make is that all facts were once theories.

Nuh uh.

Facts can be suggested by hypotheses, but they do not become facts until they fit the following definition: a fact is an empirically evident observation that is repeatable and reproducible.

A theory is a model based on facts, restricted to a well-defined problem domain, that generates testable predictions.

A theory is a model, a model that exists only in our understanding. The only way in which this model is tied to the real world, outside of human consciousness, is by its foundation on facts...so fact and theory are distinct by definition. Read this for more.

My advice

[d_54321]

Be careful

Re:The Root == The Money Trail

[lordSaurontheGreat]

This would only be complete if we referenced the GNU Lawyer Jokes page.

go away

[a4r6]

go back to 4chan, or at least get off of slashdot

Has anyone tried to mail her

[mmu_man]

and ask for her position on that ?