Patent Troll Now Armed With Thousands of Nortel Patents

Meanwhile, in California... by Theophany · 2012-05-27 09:01 · Score: 4, Funny

...patent lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee. I should have gone to law school after all...

Re:Meanwhile, in California... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 09:06 · Score: 1

Law is business.
Business is war.
Therefore, law is war.
So, who's on the home front, and who are the terrorists?
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by toriver · 2012-05-27 09:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Try prostitution, it's about just as honorable.
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by rrohbeck · 2012-05-27 09:34 · Score: 5, Funny

But being a lawyer makes more money and you get to decide who you screw.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 10:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh, prostitution is much more honorable unless it involves blackmail. Then it's just a little more honorable. Now why did I almost misspell honorable as horable, twice?
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by vaccum+pony · 2012-05-27 10:19 · Score: 2

Honor has nothing to do with it. Prostitution has a leg up (so to speak) as it is honest.
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by wmbetts · 2012-05-27 10:23 · Score: 2

Believe it or not there are honorable lawyers left. They're rare, but they do exist. Unfortunately, they seem to be poor while the less honorable ones seem to profiting. I do know a couple and they've done a lot of good keeping innocent people out of jail and if they think the client is honestly guilty they generally won't take their case. Which is why they're normally broke, because the innocent people aren't the ones with the money. We even have one here on /. he goes by the handle NYCountyLawyer. I'd consider him an honorable lawyer.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by jimshatt · 2012-05-27 10:48 · Score: 2

Now why did I almost misspell honorable as horable, twice?
That's whoreble!
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by ILongForDarkness · 2012-05-27 11:06 · Score: 1

Probably the first case of jewish terrorism, can I get an Oh Snap?
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by wbr1 · 2012-05-27 11:21 · Score: 1

But being a lawyer makes more money and you get to decide who you screw.
Yeah but prostitutes have better access to drugs.

--
Silence is a state of mime.
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by cboslin · 2012-05-27 11:48 · Score: 5, Interesting
..they seem to be poor while the less honorable ones seem to profiting....
The same can be said of politicians and pretty much any other profession. Its sad when the less honorable are rewarded for being that way. Its sad when we the sheeple, continue to support their BS by doing business with them, buying their products (gas, oil, energy, current financial system, etc...) At what point does this gravitate toward Fascism from Capitalism...is debatable, with the debate being shaped by the media and talking points utterly controlled by those same not honorable 1%. Personally I think we are already there...Fascism.
In my mind Capitalism requires:
1. ~ livable wages, not just minimum wage...if In-N-Out Burger can pay $10.00 per hour to a high schooler getting his first job, what is the excuse for McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King, etc... They could but they do not want too. After all you want people to be able to afford to purchase your products, right. Ford understood this back in 1914, and he was far from a humanitarian:
  
  In 1914 the Ford Motor Company announced that it would henceforth pay eligible workers a minimum wage of $5 a day (compared to an average of $2.34 for the industry) and would reduce the work day from nine hours to eight, thereby converting the factory to a three-shift day.
2. ~ Healthy workers with 100% health care, its more than just a safety net, its required, if your workers are not healthy enough to work, they are not good to anyone, including themselves. And annual health costs of $18,365 - $24,965, ($8.83 – 12.00 per hour) is NOT affordable for anyone earning minimum wage. Don't think you are okay if you are working for someone else as you are paying close to 41% of your health care costs (medical care and perscriptions) which comes to $8,584 annually or $4.13 per hour. Still way too high. Regardless of who is in control, costs are only going to go up as the groups that could prevent that have been weakened by both political parties. Two-party system, what a joke...you have no choice.
  
  The current health care system of Dont get sick... if you get sick Die Quickly is woefully inadequate.
3. ~ Flexible work hours, not inflexible work hours where you do not just work 8 hours a day, 6 days a week, but are considered less than perfect if you want to have time with your family instead of putting in 9, 10, or 11 hour days...unpaid hours at that. Get creative, instead of just 20% flex time, give your employees the options of working 3 X 12 hour days, 36 hours per week, get paid for 40 hours and have 4 days off. Just the savings in Gas to/from work commute alone would help your worker and their family. Might even bleed over into helping the economy both directly and indirectly.
  
  A month later Ford was made chief engineer at the main Detroit Edison Company plant with responsibility for maintaining electric service in the city 24 hours a day. Because he was on call at all times, he had no regular hours and could experiment to his heart's content.
4. ~ Ability for two non-professional incomes to afford the costs of a family, all expenses including money left over to invest and save for emergencies and retirement.
5. ~ Secure voting that is 100% verifiable in all city, county, state and
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by ChrisMaple · 2012-05-27 12:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

In-N-Out is not comparable to McDonalds et al. Most McDonalds are franchises; wages are not set by the corporation. In-N-Out sells a premium product. The In-N-Outs I've seen are drivethrough only.
Ford's high wages achieved the goal of acquiring only the best workers. If all manufacturers had started to pay the same as Ford, Ford would not have gotten the best workers, the competitive advantage would disappeared, and Ford's experiment might have failed.
Health costs are not paid for out of nothing. If a person's living expenses exceed the value of what he produces, he is a net burden on society. He then lives either on charity or theft (one form of theft is getting support from the government.)
----------------
Worst of all is this: "In my mind Capitalism requires:"
Capitalism does not require the fulfillment of your fantasy. Capitalism is a system which upholds rights, particularly property rights, considered from an economic perspective Capitalism's only concern with voting methods, health care, wage levels, flex hours (yikes), and other issues large and small is whether or not a person's rights are upheld and (secondarily) whether something is a good economic choice.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by ILongForDarkness · 2012-05-27 13:00 · Score: 1

Yeah. Lots will argue that the army is used as a terror weapon often too. One idiot drops a really crappily made Syrian rocket into a parking lot and maybe kills a couple people. Israel drives on through with tanks blows up a few apartment buildings, arrests a crap load of people and builds a bunch more settlements. No declaration of war, no conversation with the Palestinian government etc. Reminds me of a Sepultura song:
Tanks on the streets
Confronting police
Bleeding the Plebs
Raging crowd
Burning cars
Bloodshed starts
Who'll be alive?!
Chaos A.D.
Army in siege
Total alarm
I'm sick of this
Inside the state
War is created
No man's land
What is this shit?!
Refuse/Resist
Refuse
Funny also the song starts with a heart beat: Max Cavalera's (son? kid anyways) named Zyon. (maybe pronounced differently in Portuegese but funny though).
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by Eskarel · 2012-05-27 14:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem with lawyers is that the law seems to be a combination of being "correct" and/or "convincing" rather than right. This tends to lead even the more honorable lawyers down a rather crooked path as the means they have to use to deliver a just outcome are not exactly ethical if that makes any sense. The law is about technicalities when dealing with judges and charisma with juries.
I've long believed that laws should be written as a statement of intent combined with a reason for their passage, which could then be more easily interpreted by judges. If the crime doesn't match the intent of the law, or further evidence shows that the reason isn't correct we can toss out cases and/or laws and our justice system could get back to being about right and wrong again. You'd obviously need some traditional pieces to deal with penalties and the like, but can you imagine a world where congress had to spell out both the intent of a law and its reasoning. No more loopholes, no more using laws designed for one thing being abused for another(generally at the expense of the little guy).
Pretty much anyone could give a reasonable verdict if they knew what they were actually deciding on.
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by hherb · 2012-05-27 16:19 · Score: 1

Try prostitution, it's about just as honorable.
I disagree. Prostitutes at least provide a service, at times at considerable personal risk, with considerable effort and skill. At least the legal ones do not blatantly rip off customers or generate artificial demand. I'd rather have a prostitute in my family than a patent lawyer or similar parasites of society - and I really mean it.
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by khipu · 2012-05-27 16:54 · Score: 2

livable wages, not just minimum wage...if In-N-Out Burger can pay $10.00 per hour to a high schooler getting his first job, what is the excuse for McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King, etc... They could but they do not want too.
Profit margins for restaurants are usually around 3-4%. So, if they paid more, they'd probably just eliminate staff and automate more.

Ford understood this back in 1914, and he was far from a humanitarian:
Turnover for Ford factories was low, but few high schoolers are going to want to stay with McDonalds, so why should McDonalds invest money in them?

Ability for two non-professional incomes to afford the costs of a family, all expenses including money left over to invest and save for emergencies and retirement.
You have that: move to a cheaper community, get a smaller house, and put the money you save away.

And annual health costs of $18,365 - $24,965, ($8.83 â" 12.00 per hour) is NOT affordable for anyone earning minimum wage
Those numbers are for a family of four living in in a major urban area. So, basically you are saying that if you choose to move to a desirable urban area, you choose to have a family of four, and you didn't bother getting an education that let you earn more than minimum wage, somehow the rest of society should subsidize your choices? I don't think so. I'd love to live in L.A., but it makes no financial sense, so I live in a boring small town.
Furthermore, objectively, health care costs for a family of four should maybe be $1000/year, including illness and preventive care. All the rest of the money is spent because people like you want gold plated medical plans and then want others to pay for them.
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by zmollusc · 2012-05-27 18:17 · Score: 1

Well, apart from when they were doing terroristy stuff in the forties, blowing people up and such. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

--
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by Theophany · 2012-05-27 19:18 · Score: 2

Family and friends discount?
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by khipu · 2012-05-27 20:44 · Score: 1

I've long believed that laws should be written as a statement of intent combined with a reason for their passage, which could then be more easily interpreted by judges
They often have that; that's what all those "WHEREAS" clauses are.
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by LordLucless · 2012-05-27 20:54 · Score: 1

I remember reading a book (fiction) that covered some pseudo-Celtic laws. I don't know whether the form was authentically Celtic, or just an invention of the author, but they ran the same sort of way you describe. One I vaguely remember ran something like:
"Poisons are to be outlawed? Why? Because unlike other weapons, poison cannot be used in self-defence."
All the laws they enumerated had that "Why?" fragment indicating intent.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by cbope · 2012-05-27 22:02 · Score: 1

Health costs are not paid for out of nothing. If a person's living expenses exceed the value of what he produces, he is a net burden on society. He then lives either on charity or theft (one form of theft is getting support from the government.)
Did you SERIOUSLY just imply that someone who gets seriously injured or chronically ill is a THIEF for taking advantage of social and welfare systems available to them when they are not able to work? Really?
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by ILongForDarkness · 2012-05-28 02:51 · Score: 1

Yeah but they were people that belonged there that just wanted their own country, oh wait where have I heard that before ;-)
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by microbox · 2012-05-28 04:19 · Score: 1

Profit margins for restaurants are usually around 3-4%. So, if they paid more, they'd probably just eliminate staff and automate more.
This is so not true. In Australia, the staff are paid more (a lot more), and the restaurant meals are cheaper. How can this be possible? The answer is worker productivity. I have worked in the restaurant industry in both Australia and Canada/USA, so I have first hand experience with this. The Canada/USA labour-force is poor in comparison -- both training and work ethic.

There is an interesting bit of history for why Australia has higher minimum wages and greater productivity for minimum-wage workers. It is because of a deal the unions made with industry back in the early 80s, called the Accord. If a workers increase their productivity, then businesses couldn't refuse passing on some of the revenue as a pay raise.

So unions became responsible for worker productivity (otherwise they couldn't obtain pay rises), and then everyone benefited.

Go figure.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by cboslin · 2012-05-29 16:10 · Score: 1

In-N-Out is not comparable to McDonalds et al. Most McDonalds are franchises; wages are not set by the corporation. In-N-Out sells a premium product. The In-N-Outs I've seen are drivethrough only.
My experience has been just the opposite, all had inside seating, though they all did have drive-thrus. Once you have had In-N-Out, those other burgers just do not taste as good, something about everything, and I mean everything fresh, nothing frozen philosophy with their supply chain. And the prices are excellent, even in this economy.
And I have never been charged an additional fee for eating inside, to sit down, as I was at McDonalds in the last two weeks...I needed a place to do some work (and there was no In-N-Out nearby, sadly) while waiting on an appointment, had a $1.00 burger (off dollar menu) that cost $1.40, so much for the dollar menu. Did not notice the fee for eating inside the place until after, next time, even if I intend to sit down, I will just tell them that its "to go" and dare them to come say something to me. That will be an interesting conversation. "But sir you did not pay to eat inside." "Please sir can you talk in a lower voice so our other patrons don't look at their receipts and realize we are ripping them off." or perhaps "Were are the linens and silver ware..."

Ford's high wages achieved the goal of acquiring only the best workers. If all manufacturers had started to pay the same as Ford, Ford would not have gotten the best workers, the competitive advantage would disappeared, and Ford's experiment might have failed.
The only reason that they do not pay more is they do not have too. Period. And I repeat as in the original post, Ford was no saint, just a smart businessman, he was reportedly pretty brutal on the shop floor, especially if anyone dared to mention the word union. They were literally beaten according to what I have read.

Health costs are not paid for out of nothing. If a person's living expenses exceed the value of what he produces, he is a net burden on society. He then lives either on charity or theft (one form of theft is getting support from the government.)
There are some, esp the 1%, that like to throw that out there, net burden on society, I think I have heard useless breathers or useless eaters as well...as if those saying that would know what its like to plow a field, gather the eggs from chickens they shucked corn for; bring in the tobacco and hang it in the barn to dry, pick the cotton, clean out the outhouse or my favorite, slop the hogs (have done most of those first hand and I still voted Republican in my first election...later Democrat...now I see the system for what it is and how most (including me at one time) are misled. But I digress.
No they are not paid out of nothing, but the way they game the system, the amount spent on Administration, the amount spent on lobbying all current elected leaders from all parties is just SICK. More than enough to cover health care 100% for every American for the next 10 years without anyone losing their jobs. Not only is the current Health care system SICK, its pervertedly evil, squeezing doctors, patients, everyone involved in every possible way and for what, bonuses for people that know what is in their drugs and thanks to this knowledge will never allow any of their family to take them. Have you watched the Doctors, Nurses and Pharmacists get squeezed from one period to the next over time as has happened in my family. When Reagan was elected, the economy was still doing well people had money to spend, so it was easy to blame everything on malpractice insurance, which while a problem, was THE PROBLEM back in the day....now its just one more problem.
One good definition deserves another...
fascism ~ ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by khipu · 2012-05-29 16:29 · Score: 1

This is so not true. In Australia, the staff are paid more (a lot more), and the restaurant meals are cheaper. How can this be possible? The answer is worker productivity.
That is what "eliminate staff and automate more" means.

There is an interesting bit of history for why Australia has higher minimum wages and greater productivity for minimum-wage workers.
There's nothing particularly "interesting" about that, lots of countries with low unemployment work that way. Nor is it clear that Australia's choice to create a permanent class of unionized high-minimum-wage employees in dead end jobs is a good one.
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by cboslin · 2012-05-29 16:38 · Score: 1

livable wages, not just minimum wage...if In-N-Out Burger can pay $10.00 per hour to a high schooler getting his first job, what is the excuse for McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King, etc... They could but they do not want too.
Profit margins for restaurants are usually around 3-4%. So, if they paid more, they'd probably just eliminate staff and automate more.
The common misconception, often repeated, always wrong. The profits margins are much, much higher than that in most verticals, though I am sure there is one or two verticals in the industry that are suffering, but 3-4%, that is way low.
I know first hand with second hand verification that by basing the manager's bonus, pay increases and profit sharing on paying workers less is one of the most important factors in most restaurant chains. Of course they apply it to controlling all expenses across the board as any good manager does. The hotel industry is similar, only the Store/Hotel Managers make really great money and it gets real bad, real fast from there.
They do not pay BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE TOO!
Become a manager as my friend and I have and learn this first hand.
Another heads up, meet the targets set and start getting bonused based on performance and the chain will change the policy to prevent and/or minimize future bonuses. Say not only increasing sales by a certain percentage more than the the last two months, but over a larger percentage versus a year earlier. You see they know you can not keep increasing profits and reducing expenses for ever, you always will meet a point of diminishing returns where nothing you do can possibly improve in either direction. At which time you will be pressured to leave so that they can hire in someone to run what you have done for less money per year. The fact that the newbie usually fails miserably does not matter as they have removed your higher salary from their balance sheet and are profiting more anyway.
Also check out any large retail chain and you will find not only that, but that the hours are tightly controlled to prevent the minimum wage workers from qualifying for health care...You see one of them might actually be able to afford the premiums and that would cost the store more money.
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by cboslin · 2012-05-29 16:44 · Score: 1

Profit margins for restaurants are usually around 3-4%. So, if they paid more, they'd probably just eliminate staff and automate more.
This is so not true. In Australia, the staff are paid more (a lot more), and the restaurant meals are cheaper. How can this be possible? The answer is worker productivity. I have worked in the restaurant industry in both Australia and Canada/USA, so I have first hand experience with this. The Canada/USA labour-force is poor in comparison -- both training and work ethic. There is an interesting bit of history for why Australia has higher minimum wages and greater productivity for minimum-wage workers. It is because of a deal the unions made with industry back in the early 80s, called the Accord. If a workers increase their productivity, then businesses couldn't refuse passing on some of the revenue as a pay raise. So unions became responsible for worker productivity (otherwise they couldn't obtain pay rises), and then everyone benefited. Go figure.
I am no longer in that industry, but if I were, I would check out California Pizza Kitchen and In-N-Out.
At California Pizza Kitchen, the managers were encouraged and told to work a 40 hour week (at least 15 years ago they were). You see the Restaurant chain realized that the turnover in Management was actually hurting revenues. By insisting that their Managers made time for their families or just time away from work, everyone benefited...imagine that.
At In-N-Out it is my understanding that a Store Manager can earn 6 figures. If you do not know what you want to do, I would beat a door to their door and get hired and do everything in my power to excel so that they would make me a store manager, remember they are expanding and they are an excellent company from everything I have seen, heard, read and experienced.
Some companies just get it.
I am very much against capitalizing the upside and socializing the downside, like the US did via the bank bailouts.
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by cboslin · 2012-05-29 17:01 · Score: 1

2) Trickle effect causing pay raises across the board. Simple fact is some jobs are seen by the economy as being less valuable, less essential, more replaceable, etc. The more valuable you are, the more you make.
How can anyone believe in trickle down economics today, the current economy, high paying job loss and industries going overseas prove beyond doubt that its been a HUGE failure.
In short increasing minimum wage is the only way most Americans, you suggest 30%, but given todays economy, its probably closer to 60%, seriously....but I digress.... The only way most Americans will get a pay increase is if the companies are forced to do so.
If trickle down worked, in light of taxes dropping from over 50% to between 15% - 36%, than America would be at full employment.
Where are the jobs? Not only has America lost more jobs than its created, those jobs pay so much less that is laughable to even attempt to compare them as people like Rick Perry and the current Republican nominee do. pathetic. When you look at the industries that Mitt Romney invested in and is claiming created jobs, look at when he invested and when he sold his investment...he was out of them BEFORE massive numbers of jobs were created. Just another get-me-elected lie.
I am NOT a Democrat...none of the current political parties honestly represent approx 60% or more of Americans today. Not that the MainStream Media wants you to realize that. You might write in someone they do not want elected. Yea you know who I am talking about. There are a few things I do not like about Ron Paul as well, but in total, there is more to like in comparison to the others....just saying.

Imagine what the rest of us, neither liberal (19%) or Cosnervative (9%) could do if we ignored everyone and worked together to secure the vote locally (city, county) and state, change state legislation to make it viable for a 3rd, 4th, 5th party to have a shot at the presidency, and forever break the stranglehold of the current two party system that is paid to vote against our best interest. Imagine what we could do over say the next 20 - 30 years.In light of this thought, neither SCOTUS nor the Presidency matters...just take back control of the states and the House first and remove all the BS that has and is ruining this country in favor of the world's 1%, not even all Americans...ugh. Yes, this is what they HONESTLY FEAR, that we will all work together. Does not matter what they do, it can all be undone. We are closer to this today than we have ever been.
Of course part of me says give Obama 4 more years and give him the House in addition to the Senate, break the road blocks and perhaps he will throw off the shackles he has demonstrated by retaining allot of Bush people in important positions and actually surprise us. After all he can run a 3rd time, why not go for it. He can not do more damage than has already been done to America, of that I am certain. It would be refreshing to see our legislators (all parties) doing their jobs with no guaranteed way to block, they would be forced to work instead of just raising money for political campaigns. Yea probably too wishful...
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by khipu · 2012-05-29 17:57 · Score: 1

The common misconception, often repeated, always wrong. The profits margins are much, much higher than that in most verticals, though I am sure there is one or two verticals in the industry that are suffering, but 3-4%, that is way low.
First, here are the facts:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/average-profit-margin-restaurant-13477.html
Second, it makes no sense for profit margins to be higher, because then you'd see more people starting restaurants, driving down the margins.

They do not pay BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE TOO!
Yes, and they don't have to because they can get lots of people willing to work for them for a low price and without health insurance. It's called a labor market and supply and demand.
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by cboslin · 2012-06-05 21:45 · Score: 1

The common misconception, often repeated, always wrong. The profits margins are much, much higher than that in most verticals, though I am sure there is one or two verticals in the industry that are suffering, but 3-4%, that is way low.
First, here are the facts:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/average-profit-margin-restaurant-13477.html [chron.com]
First that was not our experience and second (and most important) I call foul on the article based on this comment alone...

Those with checks under $15 showed a profit of 3 percent. Those with checks from $15 to $24.99 boasted the highest profit margin at 3.5 percent. Finally, those with checks of $25 and over had the lowest profits, at 1.8 percent.
Never in the history of any Industry has the high end, more expensive per sale resulted in lower profits. Its hardly a well kept secret that a high end business, with high ticket prices, whether a restaurant or flower shop, make higher profits in spite of less sales volume. Also those price ranges, under $15; $15-$24.99 and $25 and up do not address the high end market at all, were the per plate price is in excess of $25 with the per check amount in the $150 - $250 range. Who did that study anyway. A dinner with one bottle of wine...what about two...now you are in the high end and profits are above the low percentages you and the link are reporting.
The truth is that those patrons that can afford to pay more typically do not experience a recession/depression as patrons who are not as wealthy...so those with higher end shops, do less sales for higher profits and end up making more money...more profits. They are smart enough to avoid price wars that drive most retail businesses profits to the basement.

They do not pay BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE TOO!
Yes, and they don't have to because they can get lots of people willing to work for them for a low price and without health insurance. It's called a labor market and supply and demand.
Supply and Demand...based on the history we have and are currently experiencing that is total BS, there is no FREE Market and you know it. That is another myth. Just look at what corporations spend of their shareholder wealth to pass legislation so that Supply and Demand will not work. come on already.
Next you will be telling me that you still believe in trickle down economics ala Reagan, we are living that wet dream and I too bought into it back in the day...the difference between conservatives and I on that, trickle down economics, is that I can admit that I (and Reagan) was WRONG. Nothing trickles down, if it did, we would be awash in jobs, high paying jobs as those with wealth would shelter their wealth in the company by building the company as they did for 100s of years before laws were changed.

Where are the jobs promised for the lower taxes. Those manging investments only pay around 15%, the rest of us who can't afford or do not have the deductions pay 36%...both far below the 50% or more tax rates of yesteryears....
WHERE ARE THE PROMISED JOBS?
And please keep in mind the reality of lower taxes over the last 50 years (from over 50% to under 36%) and policy changes that drive jobs overseas and higher paying jobs to other countries, to be replaced by lower paying jobs. This is the reality that leads to Fascism... what most conservatives call capitalism today. Which will become a clear reality to the few not awake as military and police are used to enforce bad political policies that help corporations at the expense of the true job creators, small business.
Heck they even go after their own as witnessed by attacks on Ron Paul supporters at Republican meetings from state to state. By now everyone reading this has seen the video of the Republican Rules committee chair whose hip was dislocated by police and the other member of the
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by cboslin · 2012-06-05 22:02 · Score: 1

Not sure how you got rated up, given that I did include links to the article and knew it was for a family of four, which still comes to over $4,000 per person...and it is no great health care plan, they simply do not exist today.

Furthermore, objectively, health care costs for a family of four should maybe be $1000/year, including illness and preventive care. All the rest of the money is spent because people like you want gold plated medical plans and then want others to pay for them.
I too would like to know where you are getting your numbers, I provided you with links where I got my numbers, wish you would have given us the same in return for your $1,000 dollar figure.
I shudder to think what is NOT covered. The truth about any voucher system is that it will never be enough to cover what you use to get for less.
Also turning the insurance company into the death panel is not good for any of us. And it does not justify the hospital policy dictated by the insurance carrier. The only hospital chain that I have ever heard of pushing back (when Insurance company refused to pay the bill to the hospital) was a chain in Texas that had over 40% of the market in that area...they basically told the Insurance company, yes you will pay or we will stop taking any of your insurance plans in any of our hospitals. The Insurance company paid.
Knowing doctors personally, I would prefer to allow them to be in charge of my health care assuming they would honor their oath to do no harm.
I find no comfort in knowing that the health care companies MUST provide me health care as I understand that they can keep inflating the premiums until it is NOT affordable to me or anyone else. While Obama's plan sucks, its hugely better than the Republican's non existent plan. Neither serves the needs of Americans, so Democrats should NOT be patting themselves on the back.
Health care started going down hill around 1975/1976 and has only gotten worse. My whole family was in medicine, so I know this first hand also. How many Doctors and pharmacists have you lived with?
Re:Meanwhile, in California... by cboslin · 2012-06-05 22:19 · Score: 1

Profit margins for restaurants are usually around 3-4%. So, if they paid more, they'd probably just eliminate staff and automate more.
This is so not true. In Australia, the staff are paid more (a lot more), and the restaurant meals are cheaper. How can this be possible? The answer is worker productivity. I have worked in the restaurant industry in both Australia and Canada/USA, so I have first hand experience with this. The Canada/USA labour-force is poor in comparison -- both training and work ethic. There is an interesting bit of history for why Australia has higher minimum wages and greater productivity for minimum-wage workers. It is because of a deal the unions made with industry back in the early 80s, called the Accord. If a workers increase their productivity, then businesses couldn't refuse passing on some of the revenue as a pay raise. So unions became responsible for worker productivity (otherwise they couldn't obtain pay rises), and then everyone benefited. Go figure.
Great post, love first hand experience.
This missing piece here in America is very counter-intuitive. When taxes were HIGH (though I am not in favor of that, have to acknowledge the truth of it) business owners would re-invest in their business in order to shelter their wealth. As the tax rates fell lower (below 50%) the intended effect was if business owners made more they would pay their workers more and hire more workers creating jobs.
That never happened. Instead they paid politicians to drop taxes on investments to even lower levels (15%) where they do not create jobs or wealth for anyone but themselves. Now don't get me wrong, its their money, they can do what they want.
Its just that I would rather be rich in a wealth society than rich in a poor society. With a healthy, wealthy middle class you can have this. Much of President Reagan and President Clinton successes is now understood to be a result of a very robust and strong economy.
Had America had the current economy (depression and recession) much of their policies would never have worked. One need look no farther than the current economy to see what has taken over 50 years to create.
Until politicians get off the corporate tet (lobbyist money) nothing will change. Just a fact.
Its counter intuitive to understand that the tax implications (over 50% tax rates, instead of 15%) was the real driving force that resulted in business owners keeping the money in their business, rather than pulling it out and putting it anywhere else, including overseas.
Unequal trade, tariff policy along with paying companies to take jobs overseas has not helped us either.
Its no mistake that the 1% shelter their profits from taxes overseas and plan to retire overseas in countries like Costa Rica that does NOT have a military. They can afford to leave, where most Americans can not. Me personally, I would rather stay here, secure the vote, retake the state and the national legislatures and fix it for our children than leave.
The most important thing is what we have been doing IS NOT WORKING. And the definition of insanity applies.
Until we have 3rd, 4th and 5th parties to break the legislative strangle hold that is our two party system, nothing will get fixed because they are paid NOT TO FIX IT.

3 times? by nurb432 · 2012-05-27 09:05 · Score: 1

How about if you bring a frivolous patent suit and lose, you are put out of business and *all* your assets are transferred.

Same for copyright suits.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:3 times? by Majikk · 2012-05-27 09:09 · Score: 1

How about if you bring a frivolous patent suit and lose, you are put out of business and *all* your assets are transferred.
Same for copyright suits.
Needs a slight modification:
How about if you bring a frivolous patent suit and lose, you are put out of business and "all" your assets are transferred.
There we go!
Re:3 times? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 09:09 · Score: 1

Because that would be silly and a gross over reaction.
Re:3 times? by jo_ham · 2012-05-27 09:16 · Score: 1

Ah, the RIAA method of damage calculation. Well, I guess if it's good for them then why not?!
Who cares about ludicrous overreactions?
Re:3 times? by spire3661 · 2012-05-27 09:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Right, because corporations as people isnt a silly overreaction. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Obvious and wanton abuse of the legal system for profit should be a punishable crime, severe enough to discourage others from trying it. We put people to death for less.

--
Good-bye
Re:3 times? by Splab · 2012-05-27 10:57 · Score: 1

3 times is a start - and remember, those trolls are often shell companies with their patents transferred (like original article was discussing); if you are defendant and win, they don't have the money to fork over, so you could probably do a land-grab from their assets. (not a lawyer nor american, so no idea how stuff actually works, but one can dream)
Re:3 times? by gbjbaanb · 2012-05-27 11:25 · Score: 1

ok, so now legally define 'frivolous' to our satisfaction - patent trolls are obviously evil, but they do own the patents and seek to justify them in court when someone else infringes them. This is quite acceptable.
Now, fixing the broad and vague software patents, that would be something useful.
Re:3 times? by rtb61 · 2012-05-27 11:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Not a problem. Company owns a bunch of patents as soon as it decides to go patent trolling it creates a new $2 company and shifts the trolling patent into that. If it wins the profits transfer back to the parent company, if it loses it goes belly up and the parent company loses a now worthless patent, cue, schadenfreude laughter. Fines unpaid, debts unpaid and triple damages, ohhh, yeah, make it tens times, hundreds times, even a thousand times, makes no difference not one cent paid.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:3 times? by fsck1nhippies · 2012-05-27 11:59 · Score: 1

Even more useful would be to prevent the transfer of software patents period. If we stopped using the patent system as a way to "get rich" maybe we would get somewhere. As it stands a grandmother is afraid to make a toaster that makes a ham-egg-and-cheese on demand as it would violate a patent that edison had on nichrome.

What did anyone think was going to happen? by Gadget_Guy · 2012-05-27 09:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

So a group of companies band together to buy patents and they create a single organisation to handle it. What else would they do? It is hardly likely that any company would be happy with the whole lot being overseen by one of the other member companies, and they would be in negotiation for years if they tried to split them all up.

So the question to the submitter is: what other outcome did you expect?

Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by 3seas · 2012-05-27 10:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is in clear violation of the original intent of patents.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by mwvdlee · 2012-05-27 10:27 · Score: 1

So the question to the submitter is: what other outcome did you expect?
Them setting up an organisation that managed the patents for defensive purposes only?

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by Gadget_Guy · 2012-05-27 12:13 · Score: 2

This is in clear violation of the original intent of patents.
How so? The purpose of a patent is to give someone a monopoly over a specific invention, meaning to prevent other people from being able to use it or even import goods that duplicate the invention. In the event that the patent holder cannot make use of the patent themselves (eg. too costly to implement) then they can licence it or even transfer the ownership of the patent to someone else, usually for a fee.
This is exactly what has happened here. Ownership has been transferred. This is business as usual in the patent industry.
Now you may believe that patents should not be owned by companies, only individual inventors. But that simplistic idea disappeared long ago; long before the Nortel patents went on the market. Surely nobody actually expected these particular patents to be used in the limited way they were hundreds of years ago.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by Gadget_Guy · 2012-05-27 12:18 · Score: 1

Actually, a lot of us predicted this, but were drowned out by the flood of astroturf that's overwhelming Slashdot.

Just because someone disagrees with you, that does not make them an astroturfer.

This is SOP for Microsoft. They have zero interest in spending money developing new products or improving their existing lines and every interest in killing off any competition that might force them to spend that money.
Why are you picking on Microsoft? Shouldn't you also blame Apple, EMC, RIM, Ericsson, and Sony? And also Google, who also attempted to buy the patents.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by Gadget_Guy · 2012-05-27 12:22 · Score: 1

Apple, EMC, RIM, Ericsson, and Sony
Oops. I meant to edit out EMC.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by Gadget_Guy · 2012-05-27 12:30 · Score: 1

Them setting up an organisation that managed the patents for defensive purposes only?
How quaint. Given that the patents are now being run by the folks who used to run Nortel's patent licensing program, it means that not much has really changed under the new ownership. Nortel may have claimed to want to use them defensively, but they still had a licencing program for them.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by mosb1000 · 2012-05-27 12:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

According to the constitution the purpose of patents is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." I think it's safe to say that buying up useless patents and using them to harass new entries to the market does the opposite.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by cboslin · 2012-05-27 13:04 · Score: 1

This is in clear violation of the original intent of patents.
I do not understand why you were voted down, this is very, very true and my understanding as well. Where are the mod points when you need them. Ugh.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by Gadget_Guy · 2012-05-27 13:15 · Score: 1

Fair enough, but my original question still stands. Other than the original drafters of the constitution, who actually thought that the Nortel patent purchase would result in anything other than what we have today? The complaint that you and 3seas have is with the patent system in general, not with this particular action.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by Xtifr · 2012-05-27 13:23 · Score: 1

The patent has still been made public, and will enter the public domain after the patent expires. So there's no contradiction with the "original intent". It may not be promoting the Progress at the rate you would like, but it's still happening.
Part of the problem is that the speed of industry has increased, so the length of a patent should really be decreasing to match. Fourteen years used to be a fairly short length of time as far as product development was concerned; now it's an eternity. But instead of decreasing, the life of a patent has gone from fourteen years to twenty.
But the real problem remains bad patents. If only real inventions were patented, we wouldn't see so many trolls grabbing patents on basic (and obvious) technology and preventing others from using it. Patents on math, in particular, have to go.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by Theaetetus · 2012-05-27 13:56 · Score: 1

This is in clear violation of the original intent of patents.
In what way? The original intent is to encourage innovation by allowing inventors to secure commercially-viable time-limited monopolies. If inventors can't sell those monopoly rights, then they're not as commercially viable.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by Theaetetus · 2012-05-27 13:58 · Score: 1

I think it's safe to say that buying up useless patents and using them to harass new entries to the market does the opposite.
That's begging the question... What evidence do you have that these patents are "useless"? Consider, if they successfully "harass new entries to the market" then they're clearly useful, even if you don't like it.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by Theaetetus · 2012-05-27 14:05 · Score: 2

But the real problem remains bad patents. If only real inventions were patented, we wouldn't see so many trolls grabbing patents on basic (and obvious) technology and preventing others from using it. Patents on math, in particular, have to go.
Respectfully, although I agree for a different reason*, those sentences are at odds with each other:
1) "bad" patents are those that are granted when they shouldn't be because the invention is obvious - i.e. not a "real" invention or a "basic (and obvious) technology".
2) but, saying "patents on math... have to go" as a conclusion would imply that you're saying that all math is basic and obvious. Didn't we see a story earlier today where it took 250 years to solve a problem hypothesized by Newton?
Yes, there are too many obvious patents. The problem there is that the patent office was overworked and under-funded (because patent fees that were supposed to be re-invested in the patent office were diverted by Congress to bullshiat). The solution is to hire more examiners and train them better. Saying "[x] industry shouldn't be allowed to have patents" is not a valid solution, because it has no direct relationship to the problem.
If you want to argue that software should be unpatentable, argue that the most novel, non-obvious, useful software invention in the history of man should still be unpatentable. Arguing that software, as an industry, should be unpatentable because some patents suck is as valid as arguing that machines should be unpatentable because some patents on machines suck.
*math should be unpatentable because patenting math allows someone to exert a monopoly over math... so, theoretically you could get an injunction over someone thinking about a math problem, or being subject to gravity, or having chemical reactions in their body. The issue is the lack of control and the potential for making a thoughtcrime. Requiring a computer means that someone can't infringe in those ways.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by stephanruby · 2012-05-27 14:10 · Score: 1

Also the new petition to the White House is not thought out at all. The big Corporations are already insulating themselves from blow back from their patent lawsuits by using Corporate shells to act as proxies, so if the proxy loses, it just goes bankrupt, and that's all.
It would be far better to do a petition for abolishing software patents once again. Re-abolishing software patents doesn't solve everything either, but that would be a far clearer goal in my opinion than trying to impose triple damages on a shell company that doesn't even have a penny to its name.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by mosb1000 · 2012-05-27 17:02 · Score: 1

But that doesn't "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" does it? It inhibits it.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by mosb1000 · 2012-05-27 17:04 · Score: 1

This is true.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by Xtifr · 2012-05-27 20:52 · Score: 2

My sentences were not at odds. You were leaping to an incorrect assumption about my position, which is that math isn't an invention! It's a discovery of a law of nature. Therefore math patents are bad patents. That's why I explicitly mentioned "real inventions".
Obviousness is a separate issue, though of course, those patents are not real inventions either. But I wasn't limiting my argument to just one type of not-real-invention. I want to get rid of patents on everything that's not a real invention.
Math shouldn't be patentable because it's not something physical. Software, no matter how complex, is something you can, at least in theory, do in your head. It's not a physical process--it's math. It's a practical application of mathematics, based on the mathematical ideal of the universal Turing machine. It's a law of nature. And by the precedents set in In Re Bilski and Mayo v Prometheus (not to mention common sense), it shouldn't be patentable.
If you really thought I was saying that all math is obvious, you should learn to read more carefully, or think things through more, because that (imaginary) position really makes no sense. Of course, this is slashdot, where some people seem to think some silly things, so I can't blame you for considering the possibility I meant something that silly. But it really would have been more polite to ask if that's what I meant, instead of assuming I was proposing something so preposterous.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by martin-boundary · 2012-05-27 22:01 · Score: 1

No, he described the current *means* of implementing patents, not the *intent* of their existence.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by martin-boundary · 2012-05-27 22:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's begging the question... What evidence do you have that these patents are "useless"? Consider, if they successfully "harass new entries to the market" then they're clearly useful, even if you don't like it.

On the contrary. If there are new entries to the market, that indicates that the patented invention isn't so difficult to develop, therefore the patent was incorrectly approved in the first place. The only effect of patenting an idea that anybody can easily come up with is to prevent innovation.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by kaspar_silas · 2012-05-28 02:38 · Score: 1

I don't see how you can blame Google for an Apple led consortium giving a load of their patents to a massive patent troll (after promising to license them reasonably). You can blame Google and Intel for pushing up the price that's about it.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by graphius · 2012-05-28 12:35 · Score: 1

Why can patents be bought or sold?
Patents were (depending on who you talk to) either designed to provide a financial incentive to innovate, or to bring trade secrets into the public domain once they expire. In neither of these cases does selling of the patents make any sense.
There is a problem of what happens to patents when a company folds. Maybe the patent should go straight into the public domain at that point. I know there are a lot of obvious issues with this solution, but I still feel that patents should not be transferable.
Re:What did anyone think was going to happen? by cboslin · 2012-06-02 13:40 · Score: 1

Splitting hairs...means, intent, whatever nuance, the reality, the way patents are being used today, IS NOT who, what, when, why or how the law (that created patents) intended for them to be used. No where in the history of patent law do you see references to multiple companies joining together, pooling patents to prevent competition and innovation. except in the last 20 - 50 years.
Pre US History also shows us that originally exclusive rights (equivalent of a patent) started at 1 year and varyied from 10 years to 20 years in most other countries. Samual Winslows 1641 US patent was for 14 years. In 1861 the term was 17 years. In 1995 the term became 20 years.
Include me in the ranks of those that believe the 2009 patent law, assigning patents to "first to file" instead of the historically "first to invent" will hurt individual inventors and small businesses more than corporations. This too is not what patent laws was designed and/or meant to do.

Re:A Very New Petition by gmanterry · 2012-05-27 09:07 · Score: 1

I just made it 5.

--
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?

Time for a change by Wowsers · 2012-05-27 09:10 · Score: 2

How long will it be before the politicians see the problem of software patents as harming their countries own industries? Guess it will never happen, as most politicians are educated as sleazy lawyers, and they are only interested in personal gain.

--
Take Nobody's Word For It.

Re:Time for a change by rrohbeck · 2012-05-27 09:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Until Europe, India and China overtake the US.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:Time for a change by cboslin · 2012-05-27 12:58 · Score: 2

How long will it be before the politicians see the problem of software patents as harming their countries own industries? Guess it will never happen, as most politicians are educated as sleazy lawyers, and they are only interested in personal gain.
They are paid very well to look the other way, I believe most if not all not only see, but understand exactly what the issues are, they are just jockeying for position to be in the group of politicians to be paid off to vote the way the patent trolls (and the 1%) want them to vote.
As important, if not more, to what they are paid to look the other way, is the amount of money that can be spent against them in any upcoming election via negative campaigning and ads, if they dare to go up against the 1%. And this is specifically thanks to Citizens United ruling increased spending more than 400% over the 2006 mid-term election. Expectation no matter who wins in 2012, Mitt Romney (the long shot) vs President Obama (incumbent), that overall spending will dwarf all past 4-year elections. We can expect assessments about spending to be revealed sometime after the election, it will be an eye-opener.
Even more important, start supporting local businesses with local products and stop feeding the 1% machine that is destroying all of us. It really is that simple.
It would be wrong of anyone to assume that the politicians do not understand exactly what they are doing. Granted what some of them say is really, really stupid and they still get the funding, that should be a heads up. If We the people, voted based on a politicians past actions ONLY, not what they say, the negative campaigning that has allowed the 1% to control the current 2-party system would cease to work.
Most laws today and for the last 20 years have slowly made it more difficult for the average sheeple to see what is being done to them...work harder for less and still lose your savings, your home, your retirement, everything.
I remember when one income would support a household of 4, today most two income families are already underwater and the few that are not are only one medical emergency (or bank bailout) from losing their homes. Hard to pay attention to what politicians are doing to you when you can not put food on the table and keep a roof over your head...the politicians controlled by the 1% have understood this for well over 100 years. Slowly, they have been working toward what we have today. Today there are just more of them (bought and paid for) thus nothing good will ever come out of the current slate of elected officials while the money controls them.
They know, oh they know.
We will know that WE THE PEOPLE have learned when politicians do not DARE to suggest legislation that goes against the Constitution, Its Amendments and the Bill of Rights....RIGHTS by BIRTH. Any law that restricts, removes reduces and eliminates any rights or freedom should never have even been suggested. The fact that they are re-introduced after the FAIL, is more proof that the politicians believe they can do as they please. How DARE they.
When a politician presents, signs on to or votes for laws that go against the above mentioned documents and are re-elected in the very next term, it shows that WE THE PEOPLE are indeed still sheeple and asleep. This applies to all current political parties in the USA, do not mistakenly assume I support one party or another...they all fail based on that last sentence alone...think about it. They voted on it and still they got re-elected, pathetic.
Re:Time for a change by rrohbeck · 2012-05-27 15:04 · Score: 1

I didn't mean it to be funny at all. Sarcastic maybe.
Now the big question is, do I get a bonus for a post that's Insightful, Informative, Interesting and Funny, 1 each?

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:Time for a change by kaspar_silas · 2012-05-28 02:48 · Score: 1

Yes but they also fight over here. Just look at the German Motorola Vs Apple war.

So now I can rip off the little guy by alen · 2012-05-27 09:13 · Score: 1

Find cool tech developed by start up
Rip it off
Don't worry about lawsuit since risk is too great

Re:So now I can rip off the little guy by Kittenman · 2012-05-27 13:32 · Score: 1

Find cool tech developed by start up
Rip it off
Don't worry about lawsuit since risk is too great
You missed out "Profit!"

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill

Re:A Very New Petition by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 09:14 · Score: 1

As of near first post, that petition had only 2 votes. It might be interesting to see how many /. readers vote for it.

To tell us how many /.ers fall in the very narrow intelligence gap between "too dumb to upvote a petition" and "smart enoogh to realize upvoting a petition is a waste of time"?

I'm going to go live under a bridge by Ice+Station+Zebra · 2012-05-27 09:16 · Score: 2

"But Trolls live under bridges." Yes, but at least those trolls you can kill with a sword.

Re:I'm going to go live under a bridge by JustOK · 2012-05-27 09:30 · Score: 1

and the pen is mightier than the sword

--
rewriting history since 2109
Re:I'm going to go live under a bridge by f3rret · 2012-05-27 09:45 · Score: 1

Yeah but they regenerate, so you're going to need to add in some acid or fire to properly kill it.

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Re:I'm going to go live under a bridge by Lisias · 2012-05-27 09:57 · Score: 1

The pen signs the check!

--
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
Re:I'm going to go live under a bridge by edxwelch · 2012-05-27 10:31 · Score: 1

> Yes, but at least those trolls you can kill with a sword.
Only during troll hunting season

"...petition to the Whitehouse to make a law..." by John+Hasler · 2012-05-27 09:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

A civics lesson for you: the Whitehouse does not have the power to make laws. That is the exclusive domain of the Congress. You see, we have this little thing called "separation of powers"...

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

I only hope ... by Alain+Williams · 2012-05-27 09:16 · Score: 1

that the Rockstar Consortium sues a few high profile companies and causes a lot of damage and mayhem. Then, maybe (hopefully), the uproar will be so loud that the politicians will need to heed it above the whisperings of the lobbyists and will have to admit the stupidity of the current patent system so sanity will prevail and they will fix it. However: I fear that I am just dreaming and that we will just slowly die the death of 1,000 patent lawsuits :-(

Proposal by Fuzzums · 2012-05-27 09:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

You can only get money from a patent if you actually produce something that uses that patent.
Otherwise, you can hang it on your wall and look at it.

--
Privacy is terrorism.

Re:Proposal by gtall · 2012-05-27 09:28 · Score: 1

I agree with the notion, but we are trying to corral slime here. It won't be enough just to force a company to "produce something". First off, the troll will find a wiling Chinese or American "company" to "produce" "something". The company will be a token company or one with no scruples. The "something" will be a piece of shit but with enough crap in it so that it will be unclear to any judge or jury that it doesn't involve the patent. The "produce" will simply be they got some useful other idiot company to "buy" the first "company"'s product, probably no money changes hands.
We'll be wanting a more stringent set of criteria to meet. I'm not a lawyer or Business School Product, but there are probably a stringent set of hurdles that could provide what we need. At least it would cut down on the trolls, but it wouldn't eliminate them. Wherever there is money to be made, there is nothing a segment of humanity won't try to get the money without doing any real work.
Re:Proposal by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-05-27 10:05 · Score: 1

but we are trying to corral slime here
I used to work for Nortel back in 00/01. Nothing new, believe me.

Re:easy solution... by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-05-27 09:22 · Score: 1

just shoot the lawyers on sight, then burn down the CEO's homes

The insurance companies holding the respective life & home owner policies are not going to like that at all.

Re:"...petition to the Whitehouse to make a law... by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-05-27 09:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

A civics lesson for you: the Whitehouse does not have the power to make laws. That is the exclusive domain of the Congress. You see, we have this little thing called "separation of powers"...

Very true ... but the devil is in the details. The White House can draft legislation that is then sponsored by a member of congress just like 100's of lobbyists do.

GOOD! by spire3661 · 2012-05-27 09:24 · Score: 1, Interesting

They are ALL going Global Thermonuclear WAR! Bring it, society will only tolerate this for so long and the call to kill all patents will begin. Its gonna be bloddy, but the time has come.

--
Good-bye

Re:A Very New Petition by spire3661 · 2012-05-27 09:35 · Score: 1

I dont think its a well formed and cogent thought, so i passed.

--
Good-bye

Trebel by YesDinosaursDidExist · 2012-05-27 09:36 · Score: 1

"In a semi-related note, there is a new petition to the Whitehouse to make a law that patent lawsuits that find for the defendant automatically fine the plaintiff three times the damages they were seeking."

That's called "treble damages."

--
Individuals must choose, decide their "essential" nature rather than having it given from some transcendent source.

Re:A Very New Petition by hairyfeet · 2012-05-27 09:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

Uhhh...why exactly are you bothering? After he basically said "Yeah LOL go fuck yourself" over the pot petition all should know you'd get more results by writing it on a piece of paper and promptly burning it. For all his bullshit he is just as big if not a bigger sellout that Dubya was, personally I'd say he's worse as Dubya actually believed a lot of the shit he was saying whereas this one is just cashing the checks. But if you think he is gonna give a flying shit what the "people" think I have some swampland you may be interested in. If you manage to get the requisite number all you will get is a flowery "Ur not rich so fuck off' speech, so why bother?

As for TFA...is anybody surprised? With every move Forbes gets proved right on Ballmer being a shitty CEO, hell if the man had an original thought his head would asplode. And as for the rest of the list, Sony and Ericson are doing lousy and could probably use the cash, same with RIM, and Apple just plain old hates to have ANY competition other than MSFT. See Job's comments on how he would use his fortune to nuke Android for instance.

So how anybody could look at THAT list of names and no figure out they were gonna do something nasty I'll never know.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

Re:A Very New Petition by kelemvor4 · 2012-05-27 09:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Uhhh...why exactly are you bothering? After he basically said "Yeah LOL go fuck yourself" over the pot petition all should know you'd get more results by writing it on a piece of paper and promptly burning it. For all his bullshit he is just as big if not a bigger sellout that Dubya was, personally I'd say he's worse as Dubya actually believed a lot of the shit he was saying whereas this one is just cashing the checks. But if you think he is gonna give a flying shit what the "people" think I have some swampland you may be interested in. If you manage to get the requisite number all you will get is a flowery "Ur not rich so fuck off' speech, so why bother?

As for TFA...is anybody surprised? With every move Forbes gets proved right on Ballmer being a shitty CEO, hell if the man had an original thought his head would asplode. And as for the rest of the list, Sony and Ericson are doing lousy and could probably use the cash, same with RIM, and Apple just plain old hates to have ANY competition other than MSFT. See Job's comments on how he would use his fortune to nuke Android for instance.

So how anybody could look at THAT list of names and no figure out they were gonna do something nasty I'll never know.

Stop shooting them down with little things like facts.

The oldest and wisest profession by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 09:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

But being a lawyer makes more money and you get to decide who you screw.

A lot of highly paid escorts would disagree with you.

There are lower tier escorts that might not have as much choice, but there are a lot of entry level lawyers with even less choice - and probably worse pay when you factor in takeaway after the student loan payment.

Re:The oldest and wisest profession by OurDailyFred · 2012-05-28 04:28 · Score: 1

I believe the major difference between being a lawyer and being a prostitute is that after the client dies, the prostitute stops screwing him.

--
If your only tool is a hammer, you'll approach every problem as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow

Patent Trolls by Proxy by TrueSpeed · 2012-05-27 09:56 · Score: 1

So after these Rats cherry pick the Nortel patents they individually wanted they then form a proxy company to deflect any negative press from them when this patent troll starts shaking down companies with the stipulation that they have no obligation to licence their patents for fair and reasonable terms. Unfortunately, everyone is aware of this proxy company and these companies will not be able to wash the stink off them should a high profile battle ensue.

Why bother to mention that petition? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 09:59 · Score: 1

"In a semi-related note, there is a new petition to the Whitehouse to make a law that patent lawsuits that find for the defendant automatically fine the plaintiff three times the damages they were seeking."

1) Like that would pass.

2) The petition only has 49 signatures on it right now.

Samzenpus probably started the petition...

On The Petition by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 09:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am not sure how someone could come to the conclusion that forcing a plaintiff to pay treble damages in the event of a loss is a good idea. Patent laws are already anti-consumer/little guy enough and there's a huge number of small-time patent holders who have been screwed out of their inventions by bigger companies. Few sue as it is and even fewer win because of the ridiculous legal fees associated. Add the risk of three-times damages, and none will. This won't hurt the big guys because often enough much more money is at stake than what they ask for in court, either because the patent they hold is valid or they simply need to try to block the other guy long enough to outsell them in product. How about a law instead to stop patent trolls ? Make it so the plaintiff either has to be the original grantee or they have had to legally acquire the patent and it has to be in active use, either in production or in provable preparation for market.

Patent troll == bailiff = useful although unloved by U96 · 2012-05-27 10:10 · Score: 1

I am not a lawyer, and I wouldn't usually defend them, but... [sticks head above parapet]

Humour me an analogy: Nobody likes it when a bailiff comes to your door. But the reality is that if there were no bailiffs to repossess property bought on credit when you didn't pay up, then no-one would loan money. For example, in countries where there is a cultural/religious aversion to repossession of homes, it's almost impossible to get a mortgage, and overall rate of home ownership is lower -- the law of unintended consequences here is that if you as a society refuse to kick people out of their homes, fewer people will actually be able to own their own homes.

I think a patent troll company like this is similar. Nortel engineers worked hard to invent stuff. Shareholders of Nortel invested in the company to pay for that stuff to be invented. The value of these patents as assets which could be sold off is in effect a form of 'embodied energy' created in Nortel. Remove the ability for companies like Rockstar to exist and to seek out license fees from stuff Nortel investors paid Nortel engineers to invent them in the past, and you've retroactively denied those investors from some of the return on their historical investment. The end result moving forward is that people will invest less.

Patents serve a purpose, as does their expiry. I could back a plan to shorten patent lifetimes for some classes of patents, but I believe doing away with the whole system would be counter-productive to innovation.

--

"I thought they were the dominant species..."

Re:A Very New Petition by wmbetts · 2012-05-27 10:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Okay, this petition is stupid and will only hurt the small guy. Say for example I work really hard on something and get a patent. Time goes on and I'm making money with the patent and all is well until a big company starts infringing on it. I could sue the company. I have the 100k it takes to even start the case. but unfortunately I my lawyers aren't as good, because I don't have the 10 lawyers they have working on it. They end up wining and it would put me out of business.

In the current setting I'd be out lawyer fees. In the new setting I'd be completely screwed even if I was seeking a reasonable amount. A reasonable amount could add up to quite a lot if the infringement is big enough. For example I'm selling my product and license out the technology for say $100 per reproduction. If they only infringed 100 times it's not that bad, but if it's mass infringement with millions of reproductions it's quite a lot, but still a fair number.

I could get behind this if there was a stipulation of "Unless you're actively using the patent in a product" or something along those lines. That would be enough to stop the trolls and not completely screw people who are using patents the way they should be.

I didn't pull the $100k number out of my ass either. I'm in the process of getting a patent on some items and I was told by more than one lawyer that's the starting fee (it varied a bit but that was the lowest figure) for litigation. I wanted to see if it was even worth pursuing, because if I can't afford to defend it what's the point in getting it? I guess I could have my name on a patent and that's pretty cool, but I don't know if it's $12k cool. I think I'm going to end up applying, because even if everything goes to heck I can always put it in my resume and it might be enough to make it standout.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware

Re:A Very New Petition by godrik · 2012-05-27 10:14 · Score: 2

I must say I disagree with the petition too. I like the idea of trying to prevent patent trolls. Actually I'd like to prevent any case where a giant company will use the legal system to crush a small company without too much of a basis. (If Android was by small_company_inc, how do you think the Oracle vs small_company_inc would have finished? My guess it would have finished with Oracle buying small_company_inc.)

But requiring a 3 times what was asked is ridiculous. First of all, it does not cover cases where you ask for a simple shutdown of the product. Then, it will prevent small companies from asking reasonnable damages. Also, uou might sue legitimatelly and lose because of some loophole or because you were wrong.

King of all patent trolls by belgianguy · 2012-05-27 10:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

The rotten system just got a tad more rotten. Rockstar is the king of all patent trolls, funded by the big two software IP honchos, known for their shakedown schemes and patenting the trivially obvious. The other partners are opportunists and a few badly ailing companies seeking a hail-mary pass to avoid utter extinction. It got its approval under the guise of playing by "reasonable terms", only to disobey said promise as "not applicable to the new construct" as soon as the deal went through. With a start like that, I don't have much hope left for any ethics to be involved in their way of thinking.

Rockstar has all the latest weaponry of an extremely litigious tech company, wealthy backers, plus the enormous advantage that it can't be countersued. It can start case after case without even batting an eye. The sheer amount of cases it can start can probably put a company out of business even before the first patent in play is reviewed.

If you thought Oracle vs Google was perfidious, wait until Rockstar here takes aim at Android. It's only a matter of time, and to me it seems like Android was the reason this abomination was formed. They've sealed up the LTE patents, so they'll surely squeeze them on that front, while trying keep on adding layer after layer of patent licenses, with the penultimate target of drowning it and scaring the manufacturers away.

Innovation is about to get its teeth kicked in.

Re:King of all patent trolls by cboslin · 2012-05-27 13:30 · Score: 1

If you thought Oracle vs Google was perfidious, wait until Rockstar here takes aim at Android. It's only a matter of time, and to me it seems like Android was the reason this abomination was formed. They've sealed up the LTE patents, so they'll surely squeeze them on that front, while trying keep on adding layer after layer of patent licenses, with the penultimate target of drowning it and scaring the manufacturers away.

I do believe you are on to something there. Use of the patent system to stifle innovation, especially with rootable devices. By rootable I mean admin or root access so you can install whatever software you want on the device, not to be limited to what is in one company's proprietary store.
I had a Nokia N800 before it got dropped and broke. It was a phenomenal almost fully rootable embedded computer that ran HD H.264 quality videos, had two SD Slots (put two micro SD cards in and expanded it to 8GB), WiFi, AM/FM Radio, Touch Screen, GPS optional, and more. I have been looking at the current Android devices and thinking that if it had at least 500MB RAM (most have more), was fully rootable, that I could pretty much install anything on it. With HTML 5's ability to run web applications offline (while not connected to the Internet) there is literally no excuse for each succeeding device not to run all the older applications but a slew of new applications. Thus your application base, assuming its rootable, should only increase over time. My guess is that the current crop of Cellular handset providers, who keep thwarting root-ability with proprietary chip sets, would definitely use the patent system to stifle innovation in order to maintain their current system of forcing users to purchase new devices prematurely in order to keep them under a virtual perpetual monthly contract.

Seems like they push only 2 and 3 year contracts with new handhelds any more.
Today the good embedded handhelds and tablets are not only rootable, but they have both USB2 and USB3 ports, Ethernet (10/100/1000) port, WiFi, at least one Micro SD slot (two would be better...put one internal under the battery or GPS and have one external would be ideal), HD x.264 quality video, and more.
The next device I purchase will allow root, which will allow me to install PHP and have access to all the PHP applications out there day one. Imagine how many more apps you will have access to with the ability to install Python and Ruby as well.
I am starting to think that if a device has less applications available day one than the last version, its total BS and a sign the device is not in reality very smart. No doubt the freedom of a rootable handheld scares these companies because they understand they have lost control and can not force you into their next yearly plan where you pay more for less. (i.e the Cable Company model with bandwidth, caps, restrictions, etc... only government intervention will stop them, why let embedded devices get to that same place?) Kind of messes with their preferred monetizing strategy. They should simply innovate. They should not only innovate when they are forced too.
Of course with every application, there comes a point where there is no room for significant innovation to spur additional investments, just look at wordprocessors and spreadsheets if you need examples, thus how can they "force" you to upgrade becomes their mantra instead of innovation, thus their focus on patents....pathetic. Forced upgrades, automatic updates, paying a monthly fee for something that would be more economical to own outright, etc...
It would serve them right if everyone not only refused to purchase their new non-rootable device but penalized that company for the next 3 to 7 years by stopping all purchases until they regain their common sense and innovate. A no purchase for 3 years for minor violations and a no purchase for 7 years (any product or device) for major and repeated minor violations.
If we all did this, they WOULD NOT DARE.

Re:A Very New Petition by mwvdlee · 2012-05-27 10:21 · Score: 1

"He who shall not be named"?

I'm assuming you're talking about Obama?

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?

Good measure by Dutchmaan · 2012-05-27 10:22 · Score: 1

Since that patent troll petition has so few signature, it's probably a good measure on how strong the slashdot population is when it comes to such things..

Re:Good measure by game+kid · 2012-05-27 11:08 · Score: 1

It could indeed be our weakness, or past performance.

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.

Re:"...petition to the Whitehouse to make a law... by LVSlushdat · 2012-05-27 10:22 · Score: 1

A civics lesson for you: the Whitehouse does not have the power to make laws. That is the exclusive domain of the Congress. You see, we have this little thing called "separation of powers"...

Yeah.. you're right.. *somebody* needs to tell Comrade Obama that.. He's going apeshit getting his b.s. unconstitutional stuff done via executive order.. He also should be advised that he's the POTUS NOT King Barack the First... Oh who AM I kidding.. Both parties in CONgress could care less if he runs the country into the ground...

--
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)

Mod parent up! Re:A Very New Petition by carou · 2012-05-27 11:00 · Score: 2

I agree. This proposal would stack the court system against the little guy, which is exactly the wrong solution to the problem.

The problem is not patent law, per se, but that too many trivial patents are granted. That, and patents which describe a problem, trying to claim that all solutions must infringe.

Re:A Very New Petition by ILongForDarkness · 2012-05-27 11:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

Use it or loss it should be the way to go. You get granted a patent or buy it and if in say 2 years you don't have a commercially available product that uses that patient it goes into public domain. You can't sue someone unless you have an actual product that customers could have bought instead after that period. Before that period you can sue as normal since it might take a couple years to spin up production. But sitting on it and hoping someone infringes is BS.

Re:Rockstar Consortium by game+kid · 2012-05-27 11:07 · Score: 1

Given the DRM in GTA IV, I think Rockstar Games might actually support this Rockstar. Birds of a money-grubbing* feather flock together.

*I just realized "money-grubbing" sounds a fair bit like "mother-fucking". I guess that explains some things...

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.

Re:A Very New Petition by AngryDeuce · 2012-05-27 11:26 · Score: 2

Also, uou might sue legitimatelly and lose because of some loophole or because you were wrong.

That's the glaring issue I see with this idea. It's well-meaning, but in reality it could end up screwing the little guy even more. The fact is, most of the patent trolls have access to funds that most people can only dream of, and with those funds they are able to by star legal talent, while you're stuck with Joe Schmoe the Lawyer who got his degree online because that's all you can afford.

This will have a chilling effect like you would not believe on these types of lawsuits being brought by anyone that isn't a megacorporation because even if their case has merit, the 3x the damages rules will basically destroy them financially while the thieves get to not only continue stealing their work but have one less competitor (albeit a small one) to deal with.

It will go nowhere... by Lumpy · 2012-05-27 11:30 · Score: 1

The White House will not TAX Intellectual Property, there is no way in hell they will tip the scales in the patent lawsuit nuttyness.

Their backers are the IP holders. All politicians care more about the money than the little guy.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:Patent troll == bailiff = useful although unlov by Lumpy · 2012-05-27 11:35 · Score: 2

"But the reality is that if there were no bailiffs to repossess property bought on credit when you didn't pay up, then no-one would loan money."

So you support that big business should not have ANY risk then? the RISK for loaning money is that you loaned money to someone that cant pay it back, hello that is a risk of business, and problem is the credit industry has the responsibility to VET who they loan to.

If there were no baillifs or if we returned to where I could file for bankruptcy and tell the bank to stuff it in their ass. The banks would lend money smarter.

What I get from your example is that we need to remove all risk for companies, and this is completely and utterly a very dumb thing. Patents should expire quickly so that scumbag companies dont just sit on them.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:A Very New Petition by fsck1nhippies · 2012-05-27 11:49 · Score: 1

Maybe.. just maybe, you would have figured out that the violation of your patent was so blatant that you could sue for it. Every patent lawyer in the country would be sitting behind you asking for cash. Are you not sure you can win??? Maybe you shouldn't sue! I just went through an ATM suit where they used retail transaction to mean withdrawing money, and public network to mean a VPN over strictly comcast circuits. If you are going to sue, ball up and go all the way! Don't give me this poor programmer shit... I am a poor programmer too.

Re:A Very New Petition by vivian · 2012-05-27 11:58 · Score: 2

I like this - if a patent holding company does actually produce a token product to get around this new rule, and only sell a small small number of units, then that shows what the patent is worth, too.

One of the most objectionable things with patents is that even if you do accept that you are using patented technology, the licencing fees seem to be way out of proportion to the value of the patent. If you were to actually take any typical program that you develop apart line by line and identify all the patents it infringes, then go and seek licencing for each of those patents, I am sure the end price would be many many more times what the software could ever be sold for.

Re:A Very New Petition by wmbetts · 2012-05-27 12:03 · Score: 2

Just because you're sure you can win doesn't mean you will. Just because you're right doesn't mean you'll win. Just because you're getting screwed over and it's blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain doesn't mean you will win. I'm not exactly sure where you've been for the last 20 years, but things have changed a lot.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware

Re:A Very New Petition by jedwidz · 2012-05-27 12:06 · Score: 1

Lose the battle, win the war.

Re:A Very New Petition by AngryDeuce · 2012-05-27 12:46 · Score: 1

You know what I meant, but thanks for wasting the time.

Re:A Very New Petition by ILongForDarkness · 2012-05-27 12:53 · Score: 1

Read an article a while back about drug patents. I think they actually had a proposed law not sure which country, but anyways it was to tie the reimbursement rate to the marginal value of the new drug. Ie. if your new drug is only just as good as the next best alternative of care you get no premium. If it is 20% better (hard to measure but their is quality of life measures that can be used) than you get a 20% premium or some multiple of that anyways. The beauty of this is if they ratchet up what the standard of care is every few years than the patients don't really matter any more. You get a few years of premiums when you are actually a premium product, if doctors get brain washed into prescribing prozaic when something else is better than they bill at a lower price for the lower quality of care they are giving you not a premium price because they are selling you the patiented product (not sure if Prozaic is still on patent but just an example).

Software needs a mechanism like that IMHO. Pricing for licensing should be in proportion to the benefit added. A $50 fee per phone for the ability to have a "post on Facebook" button of something like that is ridiculous but if it is the whole phone OS than maybe. Similarly with dev toolkits but they get away with it because they just charge you once. If you just want a nice pie chart widget you shouldn't have to drop 3k for all the other controls that a vendor decides to throw in. I'm sorry I'm not making a car sim so I don't need 20 speedometer chart types :-) So often I run into things like that where I could justify paying say $50 to save me an afternoon building something myself/browsing on crazy hoping to find a non-broken example code that I can use but end up with a multi-thousand dollar tool that does the little thing I need plus 200 othe things I don't care a less for. Mah off topic rant but any control builders out there offer a la carte options. I'll pay a 2-5X premium for a single control rather than buy hundreds that I likely will never use before the current tech is obsolete.

Re:easy solution... by ChrisMaple · 2012-05-27 13:10 · Score: 1

Gee, burning down the CEO's homes is a waste of valuable living space. Evict them and turn the homes into housing for the poor. They'll be full of cockroaches within a month, then be torched by the residents within a decade.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Petitions, are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-27 13:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

During the eighteenth dynasty, the pharoah Tuthmose III gave this advice to his vizier Rekhmere regarding petitions:

Let the petitioner present his case. Act like you are listening. Then completely ignore all his suggestions and issue the judgement what you were going to issue anyway.

That was 3500 years ago. Have people still not learned their lesson?

Re:"...petition to the Whitehouse to make a law... by ChrisMaple · 2012-05-27 13:18 · Score: 1

Alas, the current administration is a tyranny, ignoring law. It does whatever it can get away with.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

EMC, acting respectable? by FoolishBluntman · 2012-05-27 13:20 · Score: 1

Wow, makes me feel good working there!
But then, I've never seen EMC act as a patent troll, we've generally use patents defensively.
No, this is not flame bait, but if you have a counter example, I'd love to hear it.

Hehehe by Terranex · 2012-05-27 13:31 · Score: 1

"patent lawsuits that find for the defendant automatically fine the plaintiff three times the damages they were seeking." Sounds really like the kind of text you'd see on a Magic: The Gathering card.

Re:Patent troll == bailiff = useful although unlov by U96 · 2012-05-27 13:32 · Score: 1

problem is the credit industry has the responsibility to VET who they loan to.

You can't just say 'VET better'! Vetting presupposes that you can calculate the risk of default, and the likelihood as a credit company that you'll have to incur the cost of repossessing. If there's no ability to repossess, then vetting is pointless anyway -- only an irrational credit companies would take any such risk.

This isn't arm-chair theorizing. There are countries where home repossession just isn't the done thing (mostly for religious reasons) -- in those countries, any rational vetting procedure would produce the answer: don't loan anything. And this is exactly what happens.

--

"I thought they were the dominant species..."

It will be great by gelfling · 2012-05-27 13:45 · Score: 1

When all commercial and academic development of everything is crushed. I can't wait for the day when not only applied technology is dead but basic research is beaten to death as well. It will be glorious

Re:"...petition to the Whitehouse to make a law... by geminidomino · 2012-05-27 13:51 · Score: 1

Both parties in CONgress could care less if he runs the country into the ground...

Now that's not true at all. Let's be fair.

Both parties are absolutely LIVID if the dickheads running the country into the ground are wearing the other team's jersey.

Re:A Very New Petition by arglebargle_xiv · 2012-05-27 13:58 · Score: 2

Software needs a mechanism like that IMHO. Pricing for licensing should be in proportion to the benefit added.

I tried that once. My algorithm was O( log n log log n ^ 4/3 ) more efficient than the existing one, but their lawyers argued that that was an upper bound. On the other hand I pointed out that their cost was amortised and so arguably even my typical case would be O( log log log n ^ 2 log n ^ 1.66666689 ) more efficient. They then counterclaimed that my proof wasn't rigorous because it used infinitesimals, and then the case had to be adjourned because the judge beat himself to death with his own gavel.

Re:A Very New Petition by reasterling · 2012-05-27 14:06 · Score: 1

All of that and make patents non transferable. if patents can still be tranfered then patent troll could start a new company every 18 months and sell all their assets to their new company. rince and repeat.

--
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God

Re:Patent troll == bailiff = useful although unlov by Lumpy · 2012-05-27 14:20 · Score: 2

so then banks did not loan any money to people 15 years ago when I could file Chapter 11 bankruptcy and cancel all debts legally and NOT have to return the car and house.

Damn, I did not know that banks and lending did not exist before 1997.

Funny thing is I have proof that it existed, as I went through it in the early 90's Kept the Car and the house, told the bank to shove it up their butt with the signature of a Judge. Their fault for lending money to a person working for a unstable company called General Motors.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

McD vs In'n'Out by Frankie70 · 2012-05-27 14:51 · Score: 1

livable wages, not just minimum wage...if In-N-Out Burger can pay $10.00 per hour to a high schooler getting his first job, what is the excuse for McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King, etc... They could but they do not want too

McD was founded in 1940 and today has a revenue of 24 Billion USD
InNOut was founded in 1948 and today has a revenue of 565 Million USD.

McD exists in 119 countries.
InNOut exists only in the Western United States.

If you were a shareholder and you had a choice, would you like to grow - like McD or like InNOut.

Re:McD vs In'n'Out by Nimey · 2012-05-27 15:15 · Score: 1

Like InNOut, because I'm not amorally in favor of only my own pocketbook.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:McD vs In'n'Out by cboslin · 2012-05-29 16:25 · Score: 1

livable wages, not just minimum wage...if In-N-Out Burger can pay $10.00 per hour to a high schooler getting his first job, what is the excuse for McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King, etc... They could but they do not want too
McD was founded in 1940 and today has a revenue of 24 Billion USD InNOut was founded in 1948 and today has a revenue of 565 Million USD.
McD exists in 119 countries. InNOut exists only in the Western United States.
If you were a shareholder and you had a choice, would you like to grow - like McD or like InNOut.
Definitely In-N-Out, especially now that they are building their supply chain and expanding east. More profit potential. I expect McDonald's revenue and stock price to pretty much stay flat, especially after it cost me $1.40 for their dollar burger, just saying.
When ATT split up, I held on to all seven of the baby bells, ended up being the right choice as they all went up.
Sold that stock (and some other) to use as a down payment on my second house.
The next house I own, will be paid off, no bank note, as I do not want it to be taken from me due to job loss, being lied too, or some other circumstance beyond my control. Probably buy the land for cash before I have a home built on it... however no more bank notes. I was lucky, sold my house before the market tanked. The biggest heads up for me was the fact that friends who were mortgage brokers, real estate agents knew the down turn was coming over 4 years ahead of time...amazing. if you are reading this, make friends with a few reliable people in that industry and buy them drinks on a regular basis, become friends so you will be clued in at the next bubble...oh there will be more bubbles, before things improve, that we can count on.
Hint to all, the housing market will not completely turn around for the next 10 - 15 years, if you want a house, do NOT fall in love with any of them, find an area and low ball them off, figure 700 percent or more markup on the homes that were stolen from others...and buy for the long term 20 - 30 years or more....plan for it to go to your kids. Cut the bank and the financial industry out as they would not hesitate and do cut you out.

Petition is terrible by deblau · 2012-05-27 14:52 · Score: 1

This petition to fine patent owners treble damages if the defendant wins is awful, because it screws small inventors. Invent something in your garage? Big MegaCorp steals it, and pays for lawyers you can't even dream of. They win, and you pay triple.

Awesome idea, got any others?

--
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.

Re:A Very New Petition by ILongForDarkness · 2012-05-27 15:18 · Score: 1

Hard to do because a lot of companies are only worth their patents. All the companies going bankrupt would have nothing to sell to recoup money for their creditors/shareholders etc. I agree a good idea but hard to implement (both yours and mine).

We can ... by PPH · 2012-05-27 16:04 · Score: 1

... prohibit mergers or acquisitions when they will adversely affect competition in a marketplace. So why can't we stop a few big players from buying up large blocks of patents?

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:A Very New Petition by CrashandDie · 2012-05-27 17:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Non-american speaking:

Somehow, the fact you have to refer to a previous president through the use of "Dubya" either says a lot about yourself, or the state of American politics.

Or both.

Re:A Very New Petition by Sir_Sri · 2012-05-27 18:35 · Score: 1

Imagine you patented something that you charge one dollar per copy of.

And them microsoft infringed on your patent and sold a couple of billion copies of windows before you realized the situation.

Now you're asking someone, even someone big to front a fantastically large amount of money to contest their case.

While not quite the case I was thinking of: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-20070308-75/supreme-court-rules-against-microsoft-in-i4i-patent-case/ is a relatively recent example.

In short, you're spot on, that would be insane, even the existing rules make it very difficult to enforce a legitimate patent if it's being widely infringed, especially by big players.

This link was downvoted on reddit by fwoop · 2012-05-27 18:59 · Score: 2

That link was posted multiple times to reddit but each link was downvoted so it never made the front page. For once slashdot's moderation system beat that of reddit, which seems to be susceptible to PR companies.

Re:A Very New Petition by Issarlk · 2012-05-27 20:31 · Score: 1

Brilliant! Then little guys can't sue big corps for more than a handfull of cash, even if they have a very strong case.

Re:A Very New Petition by Chrisq · 2012-05-27 20:50 · Score: 3, Funny

"He who shall not be named"?

I'm assuming you're talking about Obama?

No, he is "He who should not be middle-named".

Re:A Very New Petition by hairyfeet · 2012-05-27 23:35 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Uhhh..as an American Dubya got that nick because that is how the man said "W" when he pronounced his name. it was like Ford and falling on his butt, Bush had a VERY thick accent when it came to certain words or phrases and the comedians ran with it and Dubya stuck in the minds of many of us.

Sadly there are NO cute nicknames for Obama because he has turned out to be nothing but a giant lying sellout, and this is from someone who has voted D since Bush senior. As much as i didn't like Bush's policies at least the man was consistent in his beliefs and stood by them, Obama told one story on the campaign trail and then did a full 180 when he made it to the big chair. He has been nothing but divisive, tried to run a false flag op to get guns banned with fast & furious , and the only consistency in his administration has been to lie and divide the country, look at how he jumped into the Martin case without even bothering to find out any facts. he should be blamed for every race riot and attack on whites caused by that dumb ass political move.

But don't take my word for it friend, I'm sure you folks overseas don't have a great opinion of our president and if you look up what he said VS what he did you'll see the man lied his ass off. Most of us are pretty much expecting massive waves of violence and race riots when he loses in November because he has done nothing but stir up hate between the races and figure it'll be Watts riots all over again. that is the state of American politics friend, scary ain't it?

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

Re:A Very New Petition by sirlark · 2012-05-28 02:24 · Score: 1

Okay, this petition is stupid and will only hurt the small guy. Say for example I work really hard on something and get a patent.

Only if we assume the court will invariably make the wrong decision. I realize that's exactly what we are saying will happen, but that really indicates the problem is with how the courts operate, not with the patent system specifically. I don't know about the US, but in my country you can sue someone for malicious prosecution, which is somewhat analogous to the penalties proposed. If the little guy needs to sue the big guy, he can get his paycheck if he's in the right (assuming a functional court system). If the big guy sues the little guy unfairly, and loses, the little guy can sue with malicious prosecution, the possibility of which is meant to act as a deterrent to bigger assholes. Find a way to make money have less influence on the outcome of a court case.

Re:A Very New Petition by mwvdlee · 2012-05-28 02:47 · Score: 2

Nah, the US citizens should be blamed. For allowing a political system where every four years they get to choose between two dictators. It's not what I call "democracy".

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?

Re:A Very New Petition by cforciea · 2012-05-28 02:48 · Score: 1

I've heard 99% more truth out of Rush Limburger than I have out of ANY Repubmocrat in the last 4 decades, sad isn't it?

No, you haven't. You've just been a carefully selected slurry of lies and disinformation for so long that you no longer have any grasp on reality. It is a common syndrome among his listeners.

Re:A Very New Petition by GrantRobertson · 2012-05-28 03:41 · Score: 1

Exactly! Too many people seem to want simple solutions to complex problems. We can't fix the patent system by making it too scary for honorable but relatively poor inventors to sue big corporations who use their invention without permission. Nor can we fix it by totally eliminating software patents. Some software inventions are truly worthy of patents. As with almost every problem for which we already have laws: The solution lies in more correctly enforcing the existing laws rather than making up new, simpler laws that cause more problems than they solve.

Re:A Very New Petition by GrantRobertson · 2012-05-28 04:07 · Score: 1

I have voted democrat or independent all my voting life and I have never been so disappointed or felt so betrayed as I am/have with Barack Obama. I am now pretty much convinced that he is either a republican plant or truly one of those liberal elitists that the GOP was yammering about. The difference between a "liberal" and a "liberal elitist" is that a "liberal" truly believes in helping the common person and generally thinks the reason we even have governments is to pool resources in an effort to help said common person. A "liberal elitist" is actually a rich person who thinks that the wealthy should be aided and abetted in getting even more wealthy by just about any means possible BUT the best way to do that is to appeal to the sensibilities of the regular "liberals." In other words, a "liberal elitist" is just a republican who tells a different set of lies. Republican politicians tell lies designed to appeal to conservative voters and "liberal elitists" tell lies designed to appeal to regular liberals.

That said, I have seen absolutely no evidence that Barack Obama has done anything to stir up hate between the races. The GOP and the conservatives have done a pretty good job of that on their own. So, the "us" you are referring to must be people who listen to the fear-mongering, conservative talk-radio hosts. Because I don't know a single soul who is afraid of race riots when/if Obama looses. Not even my more conservative friends at work. This talk of fear of race riots is actually pretty racist at its core. It says that black people can't handle a peaceful exchange of power. The same peaceful exchanges of power we have had about every four to eight years for over two-hundred years. Remember, it was the conservative voters who started marching in the streets with rifles on their shoulders when Obama was elected. Sure, no one got shot, but that is about the strongest sign of people not accepting the peaceful exchange of power that I have ever seen.

Re:A Very New Petition by reasterling · 2012-05-28 04:51 · Score: 1

Hard to do because a lot of companies are only worth their patents.

If the company has no assetts except their patents then their patents should have no value. We should only give value to patents based on the patent holders ability to use the patent in the making of products. As to "creditors/shareholders", if the worth of a patent is determined by the tangable products from the patent holder then we would see patent trolls become worthless, and noone would be willing to loan money to them or invest in them. The way I see it we can only have one three possible sinarios:

Patents are a tangible asset and patent trolls have a legimate business model. (this is our current situation)
Patents have no value, and businesses can copy whatever idea they want. Small businesses would never have a chance in the marketplace.
Patents value is tied to the value of the products made with the patent. Give a grace period of say two years to develope a product. This, grace period, would create a loop hole for patent trolls to exist in, so we make patents non-transferable. That is, we make it so that patents can only go from the original holder to the public domain.

--
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God

Re:A Very New Petition by ILongForDarkness · 2012-05-28 05:00 · Score: 1

Patents need to have value in themselves though. If I come up with a brilliant idea for a new vacuum cleaner I need to be able to license it (which implies that the patent has value) or sell it since I don't want to spend the rest of my life dealing with/making vacuum cleaners. My value is coming up with ideas not running vacuum cleaner factories.

Someone needs to make a list of all the names of by ToddInSF · 2012-05-28 05:13 · Score: 1

all the layers involved, and shame them for setting the world back 1,000 years.

Re:Patent troll == bailiff = useful although unlov by MechaStreisand · 2012-05-28 06:39 · Score: 1

I hope you die horribly.

--
Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.

Re:Patent troll == bailiff = useful although unlov by U96 · 2012-05-28 08:18 · Score: 1

Damn, I did not know that banks and lending did not exist before 1997.

Chapter 11 sets a different threshold and regime for repossession, but it's still possible to repossess. What is interesting are the studies that show how the cost of borrowing increased after Chapter 11 was introduced in the U.S.

--

"I thought they were the dominant species..."

Re:Patent troll == bailiff = useful although unlov by U96 · 2012-05-28 08:19 · Score: 1

E tu mama tambien...

--

"I thought they were the dominant species..."

Re:A Very New Petition by interkin3tic · 2012-05-28 08:32 · Score: 2

After he basically said "Yeah LOL go fuck yourself" over the pot petition all should know you'd get more results by writing it on a piece of paper and promptly burning it

That's simplistic. The petition was clearly never going to get wedge issues passed, the petition system was first and foremost an attempt to get the internet generation to ACTUALLY FUCKING VOTE. A distant second goal was maybe to bring new ideas to light.

Why did Obama not legalize pot? Better question: with 74% of the nation having smoked at one point, and a majority saying pot should be legalized, why hasn't EVERY politician jumped on board with legalization? Answer: because people saying it should be legalized don't translate that into voting. Don't blame Obama, blame yourselves.

Re:A Very New Petition by hairyfeet · 2012-05-28 09:47 · Score: 1

Want proof? How about how the head of the black panthers has called for the execution of Zimmerman and offered a bounty, an obvious hate crime that Holder won't even arrest much less prosecute? Do you think if the head of Aryan nation called for the death and offer a bounty on a black man he wouldn't be in chains before dark? How about how same Black panthers blocked white entrance to voting booth in Philly in 2008, again a hate crime? or how many in the justice dept quit soon after Holder took over because according to them they were told flat footed "minorities can't commit hate crimes because they have been oppressed in the past" thus making any crime against whites okay?

Pick any one of those sentences and look them up yourself, they've had articles written by left AND right leaning sites which is why I didn't pick, because otherwise some would claim liberal/conservative bias. And I agree with you, Obama has been the biggest disappointment since jimmy Carter, in fact i would put Carter as a better president because at least the man believed in what he was doing. you compare what the man said to get in office VS what he has actually done and according to his own rhetoric we are living a third Bush term, since he did every. single. thing. he said mcCain would do, started more wars, delayed getting out of the ones we were in, kept the Bush tax cuts, hell if he is a Dem what the fuck is the difference? Frankly for the first time since Ronald Reagan in 1980 I'm voting Rep this year, because I'd rather have a Rino than another 4 years of being bald faced lied to. The man is a complete and utter disappointment in every metric.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

The patent system does not do well with software by TabJ · 2012-05-28 10:04 · Score: 1

Although I don't have a problem with patents as originally intended, particularly for material inventions, the last number of years people have been patenting all kinds of software "techniques" under the guise of inventions, when they are just obvious extensions to current art. Remember, a patent is supposed to be "non-obvious" but we get patents covering everything from menus to balloon alerts. Patent packagers are then collecting these things and granting immunity to companies that pay a general license, because it's just cheaper to do so than to litigate all the various patents and try to overturn them. Basically, it sucks, and I put them at the same level as those who do trivial greenmail class-action suits (don't get me started on those).

Re:A Very New Petition by nblender · 2012-05-28 10:13 · Score: 1

that's funny. That's exactly what happened to me. We had a great idea for a product and many many sysadmins loved it. We sold a few thousand and were working on the next one. In the meantime, we patented our idea and were awarded a patent. We sold the follow-on version and were working on the 3rd edition; the whole time operating on revenue from sales to handle manufacturing, marketing, and development... It was going well, until another company copied our product and began selling it. A US company with the backing of a larger parent company. They undercut us on price... They were selling below our own bill of materials cost.. We sent a C&D referencing our patent and received a response from them that simply said "We acknowledge receipt of your letter.".... Our lawyer explained that was a "PFO. Come and get us if you have the balls.". It was going to take more money than we had to fight them... After a short while, our sales dried up and we shut down.

Re:A Very New Petition by ghostdoc · 2012-05-28 14:34 · Score: 1

There are a very few technical ideas that can work like this, and usually they're pretty simple improvements on existing processes or mechanisms.

Almost all new ideas are completely worthless because the value is all in the execution.

To take your example: you have an idea for a new vacuum cleaner. Let's be generous and say there are 10 creative thoughts in that idea. The process for creating a factory, hiring workers, ironing out the bugs of the manufacturing process, designing and carrying out the appropriate marketing plan, raising the necessary funding, dealing with all the regulations involved, negotiating distribution deals with retailers, and all the hard work that goes into actually turning your idea into a workable product is going to involve thousands of creative thoughts.

If your value is coming up with ideas and then walking away from them, you don't really have any value.

--
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond

Re:A Very New Petition by ghostdoc · 2012-05-28 14:42 · Score: 1

I've heard this story a lot. The current patent law system doesn't protect the inventor, it protects the business with the most money for lawyers.

There are ways of defending this kind of case, but they involve basically giving your patent to a patent troll, who will then attempt to enforce your patent. You don't get anything from it, but you don't have to pay the legal costs. Unfortunately the patent trolls are always after settlements and will usually settle/license for an amount that allows your competitor to continue using your invention profitably. In this case it wouldn't have helped you as they'd have carried on undercutting you.

--
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond

Re:A Very New Petition by ILongForDarkness · 2012-05-29 01:52 · Score: 1

I disagree. The idea has value to someone that knows how to market, build factories etc. Since it is rare that one person will know how to do something or even know how to determine if someone they are planning on hiring to do it is competent making things patentable actually helps. You know longer have to be interested in doing the whole thing yourself or know people that can. They can find you and you can pass off that risk to them the people better able to estimate the cost of execution, probability of market success etc.

Re:A Very New Petition by hairyfeet · 2012-05-29 07:27 · Score: 1

Oh please! Do you blame the Cuban people for castro? Because frankly the American people have about as much choice. in my state we voted EVERY DAMNED ELECTION for a lottery, what happened? they found a reason to toss it out every damned time...until the local horsetrack owners got a big payoff and the right to run casinos and THEN suddenly it passed without incident.

In case you ain't figured it out chuck big booze and pharma ain't gonna allow pot because it would cut into their business PERIOD. Its like a dealer not wanting another pusher on the same corner, only instead of a gun they just use a sack of money. It has gotten so damned easy to rig these things it ain't even funny anymore, look up the videos of Ohio in 2004 on Youtube, you know, the state the governor said "he's made sure would go for Bush" and guess what, it did!

All they have to do to make sure pot will never pass is make sure that a few voting booths in key districts don't work and throw a couple of million into a FUD campaign, that's it. Look at Ohio, you'll see the poor neighborhoods had one or two machines, usually with one broken, and they were finding ANY excuse to exclude someone, even going so far as to arrest volunteers that pointed out they had the RIGHT to ask for an absentee ballot.

Sorry friend but if you think you can change a fucking thing by voting against big business you sir are a fool. you are playing three card monty and thinking THIS time, well this time I'm sure to pick the lady!

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

Re:A Very New Petition by interkin3tic · 2012-05-29 10:48 · Score: 1

Don't oversimplify my position. There are special interests, shady officials, and election rigging, yes. There are always obstacles to anything worthwhile. Castro was supported by a lot of guns and by powerful overseas countries.

It is still the responsibility of the people to change things. The US, Russia, and the cuban army weren't going to liberate the Cuban people. It's not fair, you're absolutely right, but if you want something done, you have to do it yourself.

In the case of pot, we are in fact a democracy. Don't compare the pot legalization movement with the plight of the cubans, that's repugnant. You're not going to be jailed for expressing an opinion that we should legalize pot. If the voters weren't so apathetic about it, and actually voted, it would quickly be legal.

In case you ain't figured it out chuck big booze and pharma ain't gonna allow pot because it would cut into their business PERIOD.

I believe that you are the naive one here. The alchohol industry is not opposed to pot. Why would they be? Pharmecuticals don't either, they'd LOVE to sell you pot through prescriptions. There's no R&D costs, they wouldn't need to spend any money on marketing, and there's a colossal market for it as well.

It's law enforcement, the police state interests, and a few moral ninnies who are keeping it illegal. And that is much worse. They're the ones keeping the drug war going. They're the ones profiting off of it! Marijuana fuels the mexican cartels, which keeps the "war" going, which keeps their paychecks coming in. Plus, with 75% of the nation admitting to smoking pot, nearly everyone is breaking the law. They can arrest nearly anyone they want.

Sorry friend but if you think you can change a fucking thing by voting against big business you sir are a fool

So whining about how unfair it is on the internet is going to be more effective?

More to the point YES, WE COULD HAVE. I live in California, where we recently had a proposition to legalize pot. Proposition. Direct democracy. No lobbyists, just voters deciding.

It failed. Here. In California. Where our biggest product IS marijuana, and our budget is in the red.

The reason? Law enforcement partially, though they were divided over it this time, as some of them are realizing that fighting it means casualties. But what really killed it were two things. One is the growers deciding they didn't want their income taxed, nor did they want legal competition, and the other was straight up apathy. No one cared to make it legal and take power away from the police state.

So yeah, I do blame the voters and their apathy because it's a fact that they won't vote to make it legal. Here in California especially, but nationwide as well.

Slashdot Mirror

Patent Troll Now Armed With Thousands of Nortel Patents

159 of 220 comments (clear)