More Oracle Patents Declared Invalid

sfcrazy writes "The validity of another Oracle patent has become doubtful in the dispute with Google about the infringement of Java patents and copyrights on Android devices. The US Patent Office and Trademark Office (USPTO) has provisionally declared all 24 claims of patent number 6,125,447 as being invalid. The USPTO based its decision on a patent that had been used in another case. This patent was granted in 1994 – three years before Sun filed its Java patent application. The US patent office also considered two publications released in 1996 as evidence that Sun's described method for protecting applications via 'protection domains' was anticipated by 'prior art.'"

Comments

Would love to read the spin on this development

[bogaboga]

Before Android zealots rejoice, let them remember that Oracle can still appeal. Overall though, things do not look that promising for Oracle.

Why patent's won't go the way of Dodo bird.

[roman_mir]

I said it before, and will say it again:

government has no business protecting any form business.

Government is protecting corporations by taking away liability of the management, which creates moral hazard of people not having to care about the outcomes of their actions, it is protecting monopolies by regulations and laws, which prevent competition, and patents are a large part of that racket, but so are various laws that are on the surface aimed at 'protecting consumers', but in reality serve to protect large corporations from small startups - competitors, like in the case of FINRA, which makes it impossible for new comers into the financial market and keeps the old monopolies, that are now part of the government and thus must have their businesses protected by the government from any competition.

Patents do not increase innovation, what increases innovation is lack of red tape around your every move, what increases innovation is lack of punishment for working - income/payroll/and yes, corporate taxes. What increases innovation is people being able actually to try and do things, without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops and without being stopped by a system, that is deliberately set up to keep only the largest corporations in play, because monopolies are what governments prefer, as monopolies do not have to compete and thus they can over-charge, they are guaranteed profits from the government (even given profits, the way Fed discount window and Treasury 'market' works now), so monopolies with their guaranteed profits of-course recycle some of the money to the politicians.

Do you think politicians want a good efficient market, where prices fall due to increased efficiencies and where money is stable or even appreciates in value over time, rather than falling in value? Do you think politicians want companies that are constantly thinking about actual customers, trying to give customers more value for less money, because that's the way to survive in that game against other competitors?

Who will have the money for kickbacks? Who will do the bribing? Who will finance their campaigns? Who will hire them to be lobbyists, if government would not interfere into business and economy in the first place?

Oh, come on, there will be no meaningful patent reform, there will be no meaningful reduction in government spending, there will be no stoppage of any wars or money printing, there will be no meaningful reduction in bureaucracy and regulations and taxes, nothing that actually would help the economy will be done, because it is absolutely not profitable for politicians.

Government may be a 'non-profit' organization, but it's certainly profitable for many many people, and those who profit are the ones who make the rules, and you think they'll change the rules so that they can then get less profit and less power?

Hmmmmm.