Slashdot Mirror


Firm Seeks To Ban Mobile Companies' Imports To US

snydeq writes "Texas-based Saxon Innovations has filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission to bar six companies — including Research in Motion, Palm, and Nokia — from importing handheld devices into the US. At issue are three patents that Saxon purchased in July 2007; a patent for keypad monitor with keypad activity-based activation; a patent for an apparatus and method for disabling interrupt marks in processors or the like; and a patent for a device and method for interprocessor communication by using mailboxes owned by processor devices. Saxon, with five employees, purchased about 180 US patents formerly owned by Advanced Micro Devices or Legerity in 2007, according to its ITC complaint."

137 comments

  1. You know what they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you can't innovate, litigate!

    1. Re:You know what they say... by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

      And if you can't litigate, fumigate!

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:You know what they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P R I O R A R T !!!

      Once someone documents it all, these 5 assholes in Texas will have to actually work for a real living instead of trying to suck the life out of those who have BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, and probably long before the Texas Twits ever finished High School.

      I wonder what the penalties are for barratry...

    3. Re:You know what they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't fumigate... Umm.. nevermind :(

    4. Re:You know what they say... by Daimanta · · Score: 2, Funny

      "And if you can't litigate, fumigate!"
      And if you can't fumigate, Watergate!
      And if you can't Watergate, fornicate!
      And if you can't fornicate, read Slashdot!

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    5. Re:You know what they say... by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you can't read slashdot, complain that ubuntu won't run MS Word so then you can't get a degree?

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    6. Re:You know what they say... by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you can't fumigate, masturbate... and it seems that's exactly what they're doing. Bloody wankers.

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
    7. Re:You know what they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh, that is why the next comment talks about masturbation, as you F*ckubuntu geeks are still wasting your Friday Nights masturbating over that hot Dell Laptop blonde.
      Go get a life. The blonde was already hired by Microsoft and she is going to tell her F*ckubuntu horror history in the 1 minute ad Microsoft will run at the Superbowl obliterating F*ckubuntu and Linushit FOREVER!!!
      Average Americans (the other 290 million that are not you...) will rapidly connect Linux with Terrorism, Illegal immigration and Child Pr0n, and all Linux users will get hunted and eliminated...

    8. Re:You know what they say... by KDR_11k · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bloody? That's gotta be pretty furious then.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    9. Re:You know what they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This "Fuckbuntu" sounds like a fantastic fork of the already wonderful "Ubuntu" Operating System. Does it come with a free fuck, or does it simply come with tools that HELP me get a free fuck? The great thing about Open Source is; if I am dissatisfied with some aspect of said fucking, I can of course change the code until it suits my needs.

    10. Re:You know what they say... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Bloody? That's gotta be pretty furious then."

      This thread is worthless without pics!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    11. Re:You know what they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just more piggies trying to cash in on the creativity and hard work of others...

  2. Very nice! by The+Bungi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As if the frakin' telecommunications industry in this country wasn't crap enough compared to Europe and Asia.

    Way to go.

    1. Re:Very nice! by Nobby21 · · Score: 1

      your right, telephones across the board here are way behind Europe and some "Third World" countries also. I believe there is a conspiracy, although I have no proof, apart from plainly obvious comparisons.

      --
      Can't think of anything clever or funny.
  3. Litigation is expensive by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...but filing ITC complaints is cheap.

    The whole point here is that enforcing these patents against all of those companies is an expensive proposition with no guarantee of returns. However, they can get Free Money by extorting those companies to pay them royalties, backed up by the threat of an import ban from the ITC, and even if their complaint is rejected, they've spent practically nothing.

    1. Re:Litigation is expensive by StuartHankins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's way past time for patent reform, these patent trolls are way out of hand.

      Can we require businesses that patent the ideas to have real, actual products to retain the patent?

      They buy an idea, then sit on it. No one benefits from it (except lining their pockets with no efforts on their part). Bad for consumers, bad for other businesses. Boo!

    2. Re:Litigation is expensive by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't be too sure that nobody profits from these sorts of things.

      I'll bet that this is the real reason that the iPhone doesn't have a keyboard.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Litigation is expensive by Zordak · · Score: 1

      The other benefit of ITC proceedings is they are very, very fast. I don't see that a trial date is set yet, but I would expect to see this go to trial around August or September.

      But don't make the mistake of thinking ITC proceedings are cheap. Basically, you're paying much of the cost of a district court proceeding, but all in a compressed time period. So don't expect this to be something like the NTP case. You should expect to see something (most likely a settlement---that's what always happens anymore) happen in this case this year.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    4. Re:Litigation is expensive by Zordak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can we require businesses that patent the ideas to have real, actual products to retain the patent?

      Well, since one of the things the complainant has to prove in the ITC is that they have a domestic industry practicing the asserted claims, yes, we can.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    5. Re:Litigation is expensive by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      They buy an idea, then sit on it.

      Horseshit. Patent 'trolls' buy an idea and then license it. Only an idiot would spend good money for something and then sit on it - especially something like a patent with a limited lifespan.
       
       

      No one benefits from it (except lining their pockets with no efforts on their part).

      Again, horseshit. If nobody licenses it, then and only then does nobody benefit. If a company does license it - then they make money selling the product, and the buyers benefit from the use of the product.

    6. Re:Litigation is expensive by Sparr0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, you haven't been keeping up. The popular M.O. is to sit on the idea until it has already become popular, THEN offer licenses. If you come out with the patent to begin with, potential licensees will just work around it. Waiting until they have built their business on it is far more profitable in the long run.

    7. Re:Litigation is expensive by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll bet that this is the real reason that the iPhone doesn't have a keyboard.

      When was the last time Apple based a product on what their lawyers told them? Seriously. Apple has a long and flagrant history of violating 'intellectual property' laws starting with name of the company itself. Anybody remember the 'sosueme' audio file?

    8. Re:Litigation is expensive by philspear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's way past time for patent reform, these patent trolls are way out of hand.

      Why is this not happening? Seems like the companies who actually produce stuff have a major economic interest in this, that usually translates into lobbyists and shortly, political action. Seems like the only time big buisness doesn't get it's way on issues like this is when there's another big buisness interest opposing it.

      What exactly is keeping patent law open to trolling like this? Big powerful patent troll association I've never heard of? Or is it more that the buisnesses hurt by abuses don't have the imagination to come up with a way to throw the bathwater out while keeping the baby (in this case, defending their own products against patent infringements)? Seems like one possible solution has been tossed around here forever and has just been mentioned: if you don't have a product that uses your patent, you can't defend it.

      There are going to be problems with such legislation that will need to be worked out, but that's never stopped them before.

    9. Re:Litigation is expensive by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. ITC != (USPTO || US Court System).

    10. Re:Litigation is expensive by KarrdeSW · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can we require businesses that patent the ideas to have real, actual products to retain the patent?

      Well, since one of the things the complainant has to prove in the ITC is that they have a domestic industry practicing the asserted claims, yes, we can.

      Patent trolling companies cover this by purchasing common stock in a company that practices whatever idea they are suing over. Stock represents equity which represents ownership of said 'domestic industry'. It's messy, but it works.

    11. Re:Litigation is expensive by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can we require businesses that patent the ideas to have real, actual products to retain the patent?

      No, because some times sitting on an idea to get another company to pay for it is a legitimate practice.

      Let's say I create Startup Inc, and design a new type of lithography. I don't have the money to build a fab or anything, so I show the tech to Intel and offer to let them use it in exchange for royalties. Under your system they could say no, use it anyway, and I wouldn't be able to sue, because I don't have an actual product.

      Patent trolls suck, and there should be a way to stop them through litigation, but we have to be sure that we don't kill off real innovators in the process.

    12. Re:Litigation is expensive by Cormophyte · · Score: 1

      The one problem with requiring execution of a concept before granting a patent is that you need the money and resources to execute it. If I managed to invent a process for producing hydrogen at 1/1000'th of the cost but it required a massive amount of money to actually produce the plant, for example...

      Sure, there would be ways to protect your idea while seeking investors, but eventually that takes lawyers, and money, and the whole point of patents is that you don't need a lot of money to make an idea relatively unstealable.

    13. Re:Litigation is expensive by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Informative

      Anybody remember the 'sosueme' audio file?

      You must mean Sosumi.

    14. Re:Litigation is expensive by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Can we require businesses that patent the ideas...

      ...to not patent ideas because ideas are ten a penny, but rather to patent working inventions which actually require some effort?

      Yes, easy. Doesn't even need any new legislation.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    15. Re:Litigation is expensive by JoshHeitzman · · Score: 1

      Ah, but offering to license it to someone who could actually make use of it isn't just sitting on it. Sitting on a patent is generally taken to mean that no offers or demands for licenses are made until the patent thing is wide use, and only then going after the users for royalties.

      --
      Software Inventor
    16. Re:Litigation is expensive by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      How about getting rid of patents altogether? Not just on software, but on everything. They ain't natural, but are purely government created monopoly privileges.

      History seems to hint that rather than foster innovation, patents retard it. Here's an article summary that suggests Watt's patent slowed down steam engine innovation.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    17. Re:Litigation is expensive by Zordak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Still, somebody must be practicing the invention. You can't just pull the classic troll trick of having a thousand questionable patents and filing shotgun suits. It has to be more targeted because you (or somebody related) have to actually be doing it.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    18. Re:Litigation is expensive by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Let's say I create Startup Inc, and design a new type of lithography. I don't have the money to build a fab or anything, so I show the tech to Intel and offer to let them use it in exchange for royalties."

      In order for you to convince Intel you show them a prototype. *Then* you have a working example covering your patent. If you don't have even a prototype then all you have is an idea and ideas shouldn't be subjected to patents.

      "Patent trolls suck, and there should be a way to stop them through litigation, but we have to be sure that we don't kill off real innovators in the process."

      Two words: Trade Secrets.

    19. Re:Litigation is expensive by symbolset · · Score: 1

      No one benefits from it (except lining their pockets with no efforts on their part).

      The winning lawyers profit. The losing lawyers profit. The judge profits with demand for his services. The clerk profits with record requests. The transcriptionist gets profit from her work.

      Who doesn't profit? Generally, the parties at issue and the general public.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    20. Re:Litigation is expensive by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I managed to invent a process for producing hydrogen at 1/1000'th of the cost but it required a massive amount of money to actually produce the plant, for example...

      If you didn't build a prototype then you didn't know whether your process would actually work. If you didn't know whether it would work then you didn't really invent anything. And if you didn't really invent anything then you didn't deserve a patent anyway!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    21. Re:Litigation is expensive by Cormophyte · · Score: 1

      Try telling all those physicists who guesstimated the mass of the galaxy that you need to have anything approaching evidence for an idea to be worth something.

      If there's any astrophysicists reading this, don't hurt me!

    22. Re:Litigation is expensive by nategoose · · Score: 1

      If you required patent owners to make actual products it would actually hurt the little fellow since he's got to either spend lots of money to build the darn thing and try to sell it or lose the patent. Making the darn thing and trying to sell it is expensive. Selling or licensing the patent is much more do-able. Also, a lot of patents make use of other patents, so if XYZ Inc. holds the patent for a certain type of levitation device and you figure out how to make it operate 100x more efficiently and patent that, go to XYZ Inc. and say "hey! Look what I got! You wanna license it?" they say "Oh, but you're not making a product with it so we'll file a complaint with the USPTO, wait a week, and use the idea to make our levitron better anyway! hahahaha!"

    23. Re:Litigation is expensive by mxs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They buy an idea, then sit on it. No one benefits from it (except lining their pockets with no efforts on their part). Bad for consumers, bad for other businesses. Boo!

      Let's step back a bit here though. "no efforts on their part" is not exactly true. They have capital in the matter. They are investing in those patents, presumably because they think the idea has merit -- but they are taking the risk that it does not. They do not "line their pockets" without the patent having some form of merit.

      The patents came from somewhere, their original creators presumably got compensated and therefore had more incentive to patent in the first case (instead of keeping their ideas a trade secret).

      Yes, the patent system is broken, yes, patent trolls suck, but don't make them out to be worse than they are. All the big corporations have giant patent portfolios as well. You could call them patent trolls too. Indeed, they engage in exactly the same conduct (cross-licensing-deals are borne out of this).

      Patents are not an inherently bad concept, but yes, they have been abused quite badly in recent years. Reforming the system in a sensible manner would be good. Do you have any proposals as to how to go about it ?

    24. Re:Litigation is expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words that will fix this BS:

      Loser pays.

      Every sane country out there, if someone takes another party to court and loses, the loser has to pay the other party legal fees and all costs it takes to defend, be it audits, mail costs, and other fees.

      Give a penalty for frivolous lawsuits, and you won't see the court system's docket clogged for years.

      Here in the US, people can file lawsuits willy nilly, and if they lose, they go onto the next person. Its just like playing a lottery, except if you lose, you are out a filing fee. One example of this is the handicapped guy who magically appears all around California checking ADA-compliant facilities of all rural areas, then demanding thousands of dollars from mom and pop shops in lieu of big ADA lawsuits. All doorways not exactly 36"?, pay $3000 or have your shop shut down. This isn't helping the cause for the truly handicapped, but just bringing income to a select few.

    25. Re:Litigation is expensive by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      They didn't patent anything ...

    26. Re:Litigation is expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why isn't intellectual property taxed like any other property? I think this could go a long way to solve this kind of trolling. At the same time, they have to stop rubber stamping all these insanely basic "building block" concepts.

    27. Re:Litigation is expensive by DerekLyons · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yes - I have been keeping up. What I am not doing is merely parroting the Party Line and pretending that if I claim "2+2=5" long enough it will become true.

      As you yourself say, they offer licenses. They don't sit it without profiting from it. And those that pay for the license profit from it. And presumably the customers profit as well - else they wouldn't buy.

      Keep in mind the original thesis: they sit it, which is patently false. And, nobody profits, which is equally patently false.

    28. Re:Litigation is expensive by kamochan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      History seems to hint that rather than foster innnovation, religion retards it. Here's an article summary that suggests sectarian fighting between Jews, Christians and Muslim Alexandrians were the last nail in the coffin for the Library - which had fostered people like Heron, the inventor of the steam engine (around 50 BC).

      It just makes me want to scream when I think that we lost 1500+ friggin years...

    29. Re:Litigation is expensive by MasterOfDisaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How does a company that has developed, manufactured, marketed and sold an actual product benefit when years later comes around and says "Nope, you can't keep selling that until you license your idea from us."

      Patents have their uses. An invention a person or company spends time and money researching should be protected to a degree. IFF it is original and non obvious - especially if there is an actual product you're selling incorporating this patent.

      However, filing a patent for every damn thing you can think of with "on the internet" or "on a mobile phone" tacked on the end IS an abuse of the system.

      --
      The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
    30. Re:Litigation is expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of patten reform should factor this in, if the violator knows of the patent and carries on anyway the penalty is far worse... the inverse should be true, if the owner of the patent knows of a violation and does nothing (possibly enough would be a C&D letter informing them of this patent), then the penalties should be far far less.

      IANAL & IANON :)

    31. Re:Litigation is expensive by jonbryce · · Score: 3, Informative

      The iPhone doesn't have a keyboard because Steve Jobs hates buttons.

    32. Re:Litigation is expensive by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      What about for example ARM, which designs chips and licences them to other people to manufacture? They don't make any actual products themselves, but nevertheless their business model is much more agreeable than your average patent troll.

      It is very difficult to make rules that target the people you are after without adversely affecting other people.

    33. Re:Litigation is expensive by WNight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, of course they offer licenses, AFTER they sit.

      If they offered licenses up-front it wouldn't be a scam. They'd have to have a useful tech and people would see that and pay to use it, new products would be made, everyone WOULD benefit.

      But in the patent-troll scenario they obtain a patent on a useless piece of tech, not something nobody wants, but something so simple everyone independently invents it, and they wait until everyone does when they suddenly "offer" licenses. If, by offer, you mean threaten to destroy the livelihoods via harassment lawsuit of people who don't immediately pay them.

      And yes there is profit - patent trolls and patent lawyers make out like the bandits they are. Everyone else loses. But nobody considers these to be people, and it ignores the extermination costs, so it was simpler to say that nobody profits.

      You say you've been keeping up, but your words betray a total lack of comprehension. Are you a troll yourself, do you own stock in RAMBUS, or are you just stupid?

    34. Re:Litigation is expensive by WNight · · Score: 1

      But they do absolutely nothing for society. Bank robbers have capital - the masks, guns, the car (even if stolen), the "plan" is valuable IP. They're risking their capital versus greater rewards. If they merely had a Marque and the bank were a Spanish Galleon (and this the 1500s...) this would be legal...

      Real patents - ones that function as society intends and help people, are disclosed. They're advertised. The company WANTS people to know that their methods are easier. They want you to use their proven tech. Nothing is a secret, and everyone gets something of value.

      Bad patents though, are ones on things that are so obvious anyone could have invented it, and would as soon as they did some new thing. Our patent system doesn't regard independent discovery as an automatic invalidation of the patent, so when other people INVENT that same thing, these trolls lie and claim infringement. (How could you infringe when the patent was a secret?)

      No, all these people do is buy a trivial patent (if it wasn't trivial they couldn't hope other people would stumble into their grasp) and hold real innovators hostage. Nothing but lawyers, and only the useless ones, not ones who practice constitutional law or defend people from the RIAA, and their scummy clients prosper. Just like theft - a small gain to a few at the cost of massive devastation to their victims. Don't mistakenly thank these people for anything, they're trying their best to burn society because they can profit on the scraps.

    35. Re:Litigation is expensive by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be fair, Apple Computer wasn't violating IP law when adding sound capabilities to their operating system, they were violating contract law when they violated the details of their settlement with Apple Records. At least, arguably. And given that computers making music was utterly inevitable and that the argument that there would be confusion between Apple Computer and Apple Records was Just. Fucking. Stupid., it's hard to argue that they really did anything wrong there. My (admittedly limited) understanding of trademark law is that you can't create a trademark which is substantially similar if it will cause confusion. My also-limited understanding of this case is that Apple Records abused the system in the hopes of making some free money.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Litigation is expensive by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In order for you to convince Intel you show them a prototype.

      Uh, what? You are so wrong. That's not how science necessarily works. You can do a lot of science without ever actually building anything. Then you run the idea past some other smart people, and they say "yes, this ought to work" and then you sell your idea and they go forth and build a technology on it - or you show them a prototype. Just demonstrating the effect might well be enough, you don't actually have to necessarily do anything useful with it if it is clear that it will be useful.

      J. Random Fucko who (in this example) develops a new type of photo lithography is probably not going to have the resources to produce the fab in his basement. If nothing else, it would probably end up as the nation's smallest superfund site.

      If you don't have even a prototype then all you have is an idea and ideas shouldn't be subjected to patents.

      Ideas are precisely what patents are designed to protect. Otherwise, when someone patents something, I could make something that worked the same way but looked different and it wouldn't be covered. The patent protects the way you do something, the idea. If I can figure out something before some company with five billion dollars in revenue, but I can't afford to build it, why should I be unable to patent it and have to give it away for free? (Arguably there should be NO patents, this is closer to what I believe, but your "solution" simply creates another unfair advantage for the megacorporations and harms the private inventor still more than the current situation of affairs.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:Litigation is expensive by Geirzinho · · Score: 1

      Nor did they fail to present evidence:)

    38. Re:Litigation is expensive by WNight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Loser pays won't work unless you adjust for the financial load.

      The RIAA can sue a college student and spend a million dollars, let's say 1000 times more than the student has, and easily afford to pay this if they lose. The student can only afford maybe $100 to actually pursue justice and could never hope the pay the RIAA legal team's lunch bill if he lost.

      But we all know the court system is worthless anyways because the party with the most money wins - even if they don't "win" you die a pauper, likely with the trial still going sixty years later.

      So we fix both problems at once by pooling legal funds - the college student pays his $100, the RIAA pays as much as they wish ($1M for instance), and each gets $500,050 to spend.

      The goal, to society, is for a trial to discover truth and produce justice. To let any side bully the other, or snow it under with paperwork, only perverts that.

    39. Re:Litigation is expensive by digitalunity · · Score: 1

      Patent holding companies need to disappear forever. Let me define that for you - businesses whose primary source of revenue is generated from the purchase, sale, litigation and licensing of patent rights.

      If a company wants to protect their patents, they should be forced to demonstrate that they are intent on manufacturing devices that utilize that patent's claims. I don't mean "manufacture" like auto companies homologate race cars(build 1, call it a production car...). A company should be planning to manufacture the widget utilizing the patent in an attempt to generate revenue.

      We've seen in many financial markets how destructive short term prospectors can be(stock market, oil futures specifically). These IP holding companies are identical and equally destructive to innovation. The "use it or lose it" trademark rules should naturally apply to patents also.

      The mere fact that six companies independently developed products that allegedly meet the claims of this companies patents should be indicative of the lack of innovation in this patent. User interfaces on mobile devices often replicate UI cues from a cross of computers, embedded industrial devices and regular telephones. This is often a natural technological progression, not innovation.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    40. Re:Litigation is expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is about patents and not religion. Go somewhere else you hate-filled moronic atheist. You didn't lose 1500 years, you'll probably only be around 75 total at most. Take your crusade to somewhere people actually give a shit.

    41. Re:Litigation is expensive by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 2, Funny

      The iPhone doesn't have a keyboard because Steve Jobs hates people.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    42. Re:Litigation is expensive by PMuse · · Score: 1

      . . . these patent trolls are way out of hand.

      More chopping, less talking, please.

      "Son, we live in a world that has [trolls], and those [trolls] have to be [slain] by men with [swords]. . . . I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn . . ." about /. comments.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    43. Re:Litigation is expensive by Meski · · Score: 1

      Make that a controlling interest then. 1 share doesn't cut it.

    44. Re:Litigation is expensive by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Uh, what? You are so wrong. That's not how science necessarily works."

      Not at all. But *you* are so wrong. Where was I talking about science? I was talking about *patents*, which should be tied to an industrial endevour.

      "Ideas are precisely what patents are designed to protect"

      *You* are *so* wrong! Please pay a little attention what patents are about and come later. Hint: patents are about protecting industrial processes, machines, articles of manufactures, not ideas.

      But it's true there's a strong lobby tending to blur what a patent is about so public opinion thinks it's about ideas. That way it'll be much more easier to pass laws so ideas are the object of a patent (this is what everybody thinks patents are about so why not?)

  4. Let me guess .. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Saxon, with five employees

    All IP lawyers, no doubt. Well, okay, maybe four and a secretary.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  5. patents by p51d007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is exactly what is wrong with the patent process. You have a "company" of only FIVE people, who could potentially stop any technology that might "infringe" on these obscure patents.

    1. Re:patents by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what is wrong with the patent process. You have a "company" of only FIVE people, who could potentially stop any technology that might "infringe" on these obscure patents.

      Necessity is the mother of invention. -- Aesop
      Patents are the motherfucker of necessity. -- Me

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:patents by jd · · Score: 1

      Saxon tried suing Necessity, but Aesop was called as an expert witness to establish the allegations were fables.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:patents by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      Now if I can just patent the art of patent trolling...

    4. Re:patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone already submitted a patent application for that. I'm not kidding; search some.

    5. Re:patents by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      The cost of buying a patent, any patent, from anyone should legislated be one billion dollar minimum with half of that going to the government. Enough already.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
  6. The law needs to be changed by jonwil · · Score: 1

    Change the law so that they cant go to the ITC and ask for an import ban, they instead need to go to the courts and ask for an injunction. If they have to go to the courts, they presumably have to at least demonstrate something vaguely resembling evidence to back up their patent claims.

    1. Re:The law needs to be changed by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Change the law so that they cant go to the ITC and ask for an import ban, they instead need to go to the courts and ask for an injunction. If they have to go to the courts, they presumably have to at least demonstrate something vaguely resembling evidence to back up their patent claims.

      The ITC basically follows all the rules of federal evidence. The big differences are (1) it's much faster, (2) there's no jury, and (3) you have to prove that you have a domestic industry practicing the asserted claims. If Saxon only has 5 employees, it will be interesting to see what their domestic industry is.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    2. Re:The law needs to be changed by HJED · · Score: 1

      If Saxon only has 5 employees, it will be interesting to see what their domestic industry is.

      Licencing Patents?

      --
      null
    3. Re:The law needs to be changed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If they have to go to the courts, they presumably have to at least demonstrate something vaguely resembling evidence to back up their patent claims.

      But they do. They have an actual patent. That's evidence that backs up their patent claims. The real problem is that they got the patent in the first place.

  7. RIM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Research in Motion?
    As in the makers of the crackberry?
    Loved by otherwise heartless lawyers everywhere?

    This will be fun to watch assuming you don't blink and miss it.

  8. Are you on crack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    What ARE you talking about? Who could forget the WWI flying ace who played Commodore Schmidlapp on Batman?

    1. Re:Are you on crack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong Reginald Denny.

      No "Whoosh" please.

  9. IP - Imaginary Property by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    my god the US patent office needs to start applying this thing called the obviousness test.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:IP - Imaginary Property by temcat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Moreover, the obviousness test should be much more stringent: if I can easily recreate the thing by just looking at it, then it isn't patentable. Only stuff that can exist as trade secrets (that is, can't be easily figured out by studying the item) should be patentable. Which is far closer to the original intent of the patent system.

    2. Re:IP - Imaginary Property by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Well, read the third story here. Even though the USPTO's hiring standards ought to have changed, there's probably still a lot of patent examinators without any or much formal CS training that have to examine IT patents. An engineering degree probably won't help you see that a given patent actually covers all uses of Dijkstra's algorithm or applies to all smartphones even though it was registered in 2007 (and thus should be subject to former art).

      There really should be an open platform that allows the public to review freshly issued patents and send in counter-arguments (prior art, existing technology that makes the invention obvious etc.) to potentiella trigger a reexamination. Of course, this platform would be used for corporate idea warfare within five minutes of it opening...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    3. Re:IP - Imaginary Property by svank · · Score: 1

      my god, the US patent office, needs to start applying this thing called the obviousness test.

      ??

  10. Until.... by maz2331 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just until they threaten a company with large revenues run as a mob front and their office is suddenly visited by Luca Brasi and Furio....

  11. This is bad for the US... in the long run. by KokorHekkus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the US patent system diverges far enough from the global average rights of patents then the US market will become too expensive to both develop for and enter into. Of course the US market is a major one but if the worldwide market share is bigger it means that the risks in the US (submarine patents etc) are not worth spending your money on primarily. So it will protect the US companies on their home turf. But multinational companpanies, even US based, will be looking at the US as a secondary market because of the risks.

    1. Re:This is bad for the US... in the long run. by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Another possible outcome is that companies cave in to the trolls and enter into licensing arrangements for products sold in the US. Multiply by a factor of 100 or so for each of the patents for so-called "inventions" that might be infringed by any given product.

      The costs will then be passed on to the US consumer. The end result is a private taxation system where every consumer and every business effectively pays a "high tech" tax on every high tech device purchased and every service used. And the money just disappears into the pockets of the patent speculators ... with no net return to businesses, consumers, or even to the people who created the inventions in the first place.

    2. Re:This is bad for the US... in the long run. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      But multinational companies, even US based, will be looking at the US as a secondary market because of the risks.

      I know little to nothing about this area, but it seems to me this may already be the case (maybe for different reasons? I don't know). Witness the truckloads of bleeding edge and even in many cases several year old technology that just isn't available in the US, but which the rest of the developed world enjoys...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:This is bad for the US... in the long run. by golem100 · · Score: 1

      Its not quite true. As with fungus reducing tree trunks in the forest--Patent Trolls have a place in the Business Ecosystem--they create a market for the IP property of the fallen. This makes the effective "Price of Failure" a non-zero sum. This makes Banks, Bridge-Loan-Specialists, etc. willing to loan to High-Tech Start-ups that are one the ropes. There will be a market, admittedly small, market for the un-marketable. For those of us who have gone from Start-up to Start-up--even mushrooms are a source of nutrition!!!

    4. Re:This is bad for the US... in the long run. by davolfman · · Score: 1

      I've been figuring that eventually US patents will stop being accepted in other countries and will need to be filed separately.

    5. Re:This is bad for the US... in the long run. by WNight · · Score: 1

      Note quite right either. Yes, there needs to be a market for the resources of a fallen business, and patents are as valid as copyrights...

      BUT, patent trolls don't buy proven patents, or ones they think will be useful (and thus valuable). Those patents are bought by honest speculators - people who will expect people will want its value and thus pay for it.

      The trolls buy the patents that should never have been granted, the ones that are so obvious you could cry, and even then they don't offer licenses to people, they sit and wait until other people invent the very same thing, and only then do the finalize the patent application, or otherwise make it more visible and extort money from companies who have invented the same basic solutions without using their patent. The goal of patents was to benefit everyone (the patented technique would be revealed) and reward the inventor. Here the technique is of no value, so there should be no reward (and no patent).

      It's outright intentional theft from moment one. They wouldn't buy a patent so useless that people were already doing fine without it unless they intended to hold people hostage.

  12. Judge to dismiss with prejudice by erroneus · · Score: 1

    The judge in the case should say "Uh... that's not what patents are for... buying them so you can sue people. I find your behavior is not consistent with the spirit of the law and that as a result, your case is done."

    1. Re:Judge to dismiss with prejudice by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 1
      That would be a very brave judge. A judgement like that is likely to be appealed all the way to SCOTUS, and most likely overturned.

      This is a problem that needs to fixed by changing the law.

    2. Re:Judge to dismiss with prejudice by conureman · · Score: 1

      Will this be litigated in Texas?

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  13. I say giv'er by Internalist · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Imagine the public outcry if even just RIM and Nokia stopped all imports of mobile devices overnight (people luuuurve their N810s---don't even get me started on Crackberries). Since RIM's communications all go through a couple of central points, maybe they could even disable ALL of their devices.

    "Sorry John Q. Public...this company here, at address ABC, phone number NNX-XXXX, says we're being bad. Take it up with them."

    OK, so maybe that wouldn't really happen...I'll go back to the basement now. OK, I was in the basement all along.

    --
    Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun
  14. Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Speaking as a non-American, I think this is fantastic! The faster the ban happens the better! What an excellent way to make sure that the US lags in technology and becomes non-competitive. Neat way to destroy your technology lead.

    Now if we can encourage you to do the same in other fields of endeavor. Shakes head with wonder and disbelief.

  15. I guess it's clear why AMD sold them... by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...because they're crap. I looked at the first patent and the first few claims looked suspiciously like the (certainly not novel) idea of connecting up a keyboard matrix in such a way that pressing a key triggers an interrupt on the row lines, which triggers a wake-up event and a keyboard scan. I couldn't tell about the later claims. Then I looked at the interrupt mask patent

    1. An interrupt mask disable circuit comprising:

    first logic circuitry operably coupled to receive an interrupt request and a mask signal and to provide an interrupt signal when the interrupt request is active and the mask signal is disabled, and to provide a non-interrupt signal when the mask signal is enabled regardless of whether the interrupt request is active or inactive; and
    second logic circuitry operably coupled to receive a mask activation signal and a mask override signal and to produce the mask signal, wherein the mask signal is enabled when the mask activation signal is active and the mask override signal is not enabled and wherein the mask signal is disabled when the mask override signal is active regardless of whether the mask activation signal is enabled or disabled.

    You've got to be kidding me. AMD patented a common interrupt mask circuit... in 1994? Apparently it isn't only with respect to software that the patent office is out of touch.

    1. Re:I guess it's clear why AMD sold them... by salimma · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My opinion of AMD has gone down considerably due to this. Applying for worthless patents is bad enough -- selling them to a patent-trolling company?

      Shame on you, AMD.

      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
  16. Patents and the monkeys typing Shakespear... by SuperCharlie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So Im reading yet another article on how some troll is ransoming out some more patents.. great.. meanwhile, a day or two ago I read the who's got the most patents for 2008 and numbers like.. IBM said it earned 4,186 U.S. patents in 2008, Microsoft Corp earned 2,030 patents, while Intel Corp had 1,776 and Hewlett-Packard 1,424. (from a Slashdot article)

    Im thinkin the real weight of the patent system isnt even touched by major corps. Individual and small group/investment firm patent companys like Eolas looking for that ONE patent to go home on, by sheer numbers, probably dwarf the IBM and MS's of the world.. regardless..

    By sheer brute force attack on common technology methods, conduits, hardware and the like they create a "monkeys typing Shakespear" effect, not with letters, but with common terms and principles.

    At the rate the monkeys are being added, soon no one should be able to do anything without everyones approval.



    Tada...

    1. Re:Patents and the monkeys typing Shakespear... by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Im thinkin the real weight of the patent system isnt even touched by major corps. Individual and small group/investment firm patent companys like Eolas looking for that ONE patent to go home on, by sheer numbers, probably dwarf the IBM and MS's of the world.. regardless.."

      I really don't know, but it doesn't matter. The core of the bussines here is not having "that ONE patent" but having that one patent WITHOUT an industry backing it up. Big corps have used patents as deterrent weapons against their rivals for decades now but the problem here is not a little tech company with the "ONE patent": as long as they produce something, they are probably in violation of dozens of patents belonging to the very ones they want to license to, so they will be forced into a mutual agreement; if the case is between two big corps they have such a big patent arsenal that they again are forced to cooperate or face an assured mutual destruction scenario. But lawyer-based firms don't produce anything so they are immune to the usual patent counterattack which has made the patent system flaws more obvious.

  17. Re:You are kidding. right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citation please.

  18. Domestic Industry? by UnrealisticWhample · · Score: 3, Informative

    They don't even have an actual website. If you go to , all you'll find is an under construction message. Pretty much all you can find about them online is related to suing people. I miss the good ole days of the 1790's when Thomas Jefferson would deny a patent if the inventor couldn't demonstrate a working product.

    1. Re:Domestic Industry? by UnrealisticWhample · · Score: 1

      Not sure why it cut the link out. It's http://www.saxoninnovations.com/. I probably used an = instead of the :

    2. Re:Domestic Industry? by conureman · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the lesson here is that the system was designed with some basic assumptions about the "anybody" who would be running it, but the Founding Fathers were not aware that The Enlightenment would be just a temporary aberration.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    3. Re:Domestic Industry? by narcberry · · Score: 1

      These guys bought their patents from the inventors, who did have a working product.

      If IP is treated as property, you need to protect the exchange and new ownership as well.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    4. Re:Domestic Industry? by UnrealisticWhample · · Score: 1

      A number of the founders, Thomas Jefferson included, initially thought that patents were wrong and perhaps even unconstitutional but later came to see that allowing patents to be issued in limited circumstances was beneficial for the development of ideas. However, these patents needed to be restrictive enough so as to prevent the creation of monopolies and also to allow other inventors access, after a reasonable time, to those methods so that they could then continue the process of invention.

      It is hard to see how allowing a a company to exist solely to acquire and then license the use of said patents. To do so circumvents the intention of patents by taking what would happen after the expiration of the patent, allowing other inventors to take a crack at the invention and improve upon it, and instead turns it into an odd sort of tightly controlled rental agreement.

    5. Re:Domestic Industry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why I"P" is the wrong term, patents shouldn't be treated "as property" in the first place.

  19. Re:Method! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    "A system whih can dispose of soiled water while retaining life forms which possess at least one million cells and in the primate kingdom. This has the side effect of also assisting singers with primate pets from losing them too."

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  20. Re:You are kidding. right? by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    EU could not handle a 9/11 in their system.

    Neither could the USA it seems.

  21. One Guess Why Saxon is based in Tyler, TX by Hangtime · · Score: 3, Informative

    U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, ding ding ding

    I'm from Texas and I think every judge in that district should be removed.

    1. Re:One Guess Why Saxon is based in Tyler, TX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? The judges are following the law. The LAW needs to be changed. Congress and the President need to make changes to address the troll issue - the trolls are operating legally under the current patent laws.

      Almost every patent plaintiff in the Eastern District asks for a JURY trial.
      They know that a jury from Tyler, Texas, will have trouble understanding any technical fact issues. The plaintiff effectively removes those issues from the jury's consideration, as they can't understand them. The plaintiff is then free to rely on good ol' boy lawyerin' to win over the jury and win the case.

      The reason people file in the Eastern District are the juries and the fast docket. Removing judges won't fix things.

    2. Re:One Guess Why Saxon is based in Tyler, TX by ubernostrum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would really dearly love to see a lot of tech companies start refusing to ship products to east Texas, and start refusing to do distribution deals to stores there. Take every single useful gadget off their market with an industry boycott, and tell 'em that they can have their shiny gizmos back when they stop producing ludicrous patent decisions.

    3. Re:One Guess Why Saxon is based in Tyler, TX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being an employee of the automobile industry, let me say 'Hallelujah'! It should come as no surprise to you that a disproportionately large number of lawsuits against us are filed in this neck of the woods and we pretty much lose them all regardless of merit.

  22. Saxon? by Kam+Solusar · · Score: 1

    Saxon... handheld devices... Sounds like a masterplan. What are they going to do next? Shoot some satellites into orbit and start an earth-wide mobilephone satellite network?

    Huh? Do you hear that sound? Kinda sounds like drums!?

    --
    The Angels have the Phone Box
  23. You should be cheering this. Really. by toby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You worked out yet why your economy is in the crapper?

    Imports. And outsourcing all your manufacturing to China.

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:You should be cheering this. Really. by Ztream · · Score: 1

      Talk about selective memory. Did you miss the global financial crisis? Everybody elses economy is in the crapper too. Including China.

  24. I think I speak for quite a few when I say by binaryseraph · · Score: 1

    "Wankers."

  25. not #-of-people, but NOTproducer/inventor: THAT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is the first-half of The Problem.

    If I invented, and patented, some tech that all new Intel procs later used, I ought to be able to get compensation for having been first to post the patent.

    It doesn't matter how many I employ.

    But extortion, that can cost many livelyhoods, ... I seem to recall that in the Jewish/Christian Bible, there is a commandment/law against usury?

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2022:25-27;&version=45;

    yeah, destroying livelyhoods seems to offend god, according to that...

    That is the second-half of The Problem(tm).

    Sincerely yers,

          Captain Obvious.

    ( :

  26. And if you litigate.... by maz2331 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Say hello to my LITTLE FRIEND! /funny

    Seriously, these suits are approaching a level of craziness that someone, somewhere, at some time will simply not retain counsel, and will instead just kill the IP firm's principals, lawyers, etc. Or spawn a "take care of it" industry that will indeed "take care" of the "problem" for under 10% of the amount at stake.

    When billions of dollars are at stake, I'd never put anything past a CEO. When billions of tax revenues are at stake even the FBI will overlook a small local arson case...

  27. You keep using that word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Horseshit.

    ... I do not think it means what you think it means.

    1. Re:You keep using that word... by temcat · · Score: 1

      It is, errr, shit from a horse, right?

    2. Re:You keep using that word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. However, Monsieur Lyons has a habit of using the word to disparage posts he does not agree with. Sometimes he is correct, in that the targeted post may indeed be comparable to equine excrement. Sometimes, unfortunately, he is incorrect, as in this thread, and his alacrity in using such impolite and blunt language makes him come across as an abusive troll -- as other posters have noted.

  28. If you *really* wanna find why econ is in crapper by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    ... you should try to work out why all that manufacturing went overseas in the first place.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  29. Re:If you *really* wanna find why econ is in crapp by int69h · · Score: 1

    Because Americans won't work for 3 pieces of rice / day, and require that their employers don't needlessly endanger them?

  30. Re:If you *really* wanna find why econ is in crapp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, it must be someone else's fault that the USA is in the crapper. Couldn't be all the greedy, lazy, whiners making life difficult for honest people, could it?

  31. Re:If you *really* wanna find why econ is in crapp by TheSync · · Score: 1

    Because Americans won't work for 3 pieces of rice / day, and require that their employers don't needlessly endanger them?

    How many Slashdot users would ever make shoes or plastic toys?

  32. Re:If you *really* wanna find why econ is in crapp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because
    1) Its cheaper, and going wrong risks are lower too.
    2) No patent IP or lawyer bullshit
    3) No safety bullshit *Toxic Toys" dodgy electrics
    4) Bush sold you lot out
    5) USA Manufacturing skills have been lost
    6) USA Auto is in the crosshairs

    The real answer also belongs to marketeering -
    How much for 500,000 processors..(Simple question)
    Salesman: Where are you calling from?

    Basically cost is figured out on what they think you can afford, based of geographic territories.

    Cases like these will ensure nothing 'new' containing 'new' features will not be made in USA.

  33. Quickest solution by yabba-dabba-do · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is for RIM to disable Obama's phone. "Sorry, when the patent mess is cleaned up, we'll turn it back on."

  34. Buying stuff is the new innovation by naich · · Score: 1

    "Saxon Innovations... purchased about 180 US patents formerly owned by Advanced Micro Devices or Legerity in 2007"

    Not a massive amount of innovation going on there really, is there?

  35. prior art by r00t · · Score: 1

    Mercury Computer Systems, Inc.

    late 1990's, maybe early 1990's, maybe ongoing

    Each CPU had mailboxes in the north bridge chip.

    1. Re:prior art by OolimPhon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can do much better than that. Honeywell Level 66 mainframes had mailboxes in their CPUs to talk to the I/O processors. This dates back to at least 1975, when I first encountered them. Probably true for Multics mainframes from the '60s too.

  36. Re:You are kidding. right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of western Europe have had all-fibre backbones and full digital switching for over a decade now, and many are now migrating to IP-based networks.

  37. USA is doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this crap and then Olmert telling Bush what to do. The tail really does wag the dog.

  38. When will it end.... by Llian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder what else the US citizenry will allow to screw them over. I mean in economic times like these STILL allowing the big boys to LESSEN competition? WTG!!

    Drill --> Nose --> Power On --> Push upwards

  39. Re:You are kidding. right? by ivucica · · Score: 1

    > EU could not handle a 9/11 in their system.

    No, we have 11/2

  40. Re:You are kidding. right? by ivucica · · Score: 1

    It's "citation needed", yknow. Oops, scratch that. It's "[citation needed]"[1].

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

  41. Pooling litigation funds - very interesting idea by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    I wonder why I've never heard this suggestion before, it's such an elegantly simple and clever solution:

    So we fix both problems at once by pooling legal funds - the college student pays his $100, the RIAA pays as much as they wish ($1M for instance), and each gets $500,050 to spend.

    Some people will no doubt complain that this is somehow unfair. Your rationale says it better than I could, so I'll counter that argument by simply quoting you again here. :)

    The goal, to society, is for a trial to discover truth and produce justice. To let any side bully the other, or snow it under with paperwork, only perverts that.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  42. US patents already not accepted outside US, no? by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Um, I could be wrong, but I thought that was already the case ... ? I.e., patents must be filed in every country for which a potential patentholder desires patent protection. US patents are no good in Japan, for instance -- a separate Japanese patent must be applied for. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO, website here) is an attempt at streamlining this process to some degree.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  43. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can not believe. They even didn't invent the technologies. Why such companies exist? Not to create, develop, produce, move ahead... but just to be pain in the ass for the others - companies and clients. Triumph of stupidity.

  44. Re:If you *really* wanna find why econ is in crapp by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't mind, if they paid me $75 an hour to do it. :)

  45. patents should be non-transferable by josepha48 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    pretty simple, companies should not sell and buy patents!

    Either that or they should be treated as real property and taxed, like real estate is taxed in most states. Then annual taxes would be assessed to patent holder.

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!
    Does slashdot hate my posts?