Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Sued By Rembrandt IP For Two Patent Violations
An anonymous reader writes "Ars is reporting that the patent-holding company, along with the heirs of Dutch programmer, Joannes Jozef Everardus Van Der Meer (deceased 2004), have filed suit against Facebook for violating two patents relating to social media web sites. The two patents in question were filed for back in 1998, a full four years before Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg first entered university at Harvard. Among the claims made in the lawsuit is that Facebook's "Like" button violates one of Van Der Meer's patents. Facebook even cited one of Van Der Meer's patents in one of their own filings later on. The suit seeks unspecified damages."
Please. I hate Facebook as much as the next guy, but this is just ridiculous.
I patented the process to think.
Near as I can tell, very few people are actually violating your patent.
"The way the patent laws work, and have worked for 200 years, is that when someone else uses it—whether intentionally or unintentionally—they owe a reasonable royalty," said Melsheimer. "It's not necessarily a function of bad intent or malicious planning. The notion that the original inventor didn't succeed in commercializing the invention is, legally speaking, not relevant.""
Patents are absolute monopolies which allow any and all royalty rates ... reason doesn't enter into it.
Simple... If Facebook has the guts to do it. Turn all of Facebook off. That's right, just a blank page to Facebook.com and make all FB powered comments show one thing :
Do that worldwide.
Facebook will lose a day's revenue, and my-oh-my, will that get everyeone's attention. And before someone asserts that they're just protecting their IP... um... no. Not only do "copyright holding" companies fly against the very face of the very spirit of copyright protection -- that is to give innovators of a concept and creation to profit from that creation -- these guys don't invent anything, don't produce anything, don't contribute anything to society. It's the copyright equivalent of cybersquatting.
If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
The more you think about it, the more it costs you...
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
You realise that if IP rights terminated with their death you are creating the perverse incentive to have copyright holders and inventors of patented inventions assassinated.
> creating the perverse incentive to have copyright holders and inventors of patented inventions assassinated.
The incentives to kill people always exists for parties who can leverage the death in a myriad of ways. This wouldn't be perverse or special in any way.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
I think patent should only cover ideas that are implemented. Under the current system, if you patent some ideas that cannot be implemented now, you essentially stop people in the future from implementing them, until your patent expires. This stifles innovation.
Imagine that you create something and then die the next day. You and your heirs will never get any reward for your creation. Now imagine that you die and, instead of passing your house and posessions to your heirs, the government takes it all. Ultimately, ownership of anything (physical or intellectual) is possible only because laws allow you to own it.
The real problem with copyright is not that they continue to exist after the author is dead, but that the terms are far too long. Patents are not too long, but are granted for things that are obvious and not inventive.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It's cheaper to hire a hit-man than to fight a patent suit...
No, it is unspecified because they left the award amount up to the court. It happens on every suit I have seen. "We ask for relief as the court deems equitable."
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
I don't believe heirs should get any reward for your invention.
"The way the patent laws work, and have worked for 200 years, is that when someone else uses it—whether intentionally or unintentionally—they owe a reasonable royalty," said Melsheimer. "It's not necessarily a function of bad intent or malicious planning. The notion that the original inventor didn't succeed in commercializing the invention is, legally speaking, not relevant.""
Patents are absolute monopolies which allow any and all royalty rates ... reason doesn't enter into it.
Not so. Patents are absolute monopolies that can be used either for injunctive relief, which allows no royalties by definition because the infringer is no longer allowed to continue infringing; or for monetary damages, which allows a "reasonable royalty". In other words, you can either get 0 royalties and have an absolute monopoly, or you can get a reasonable royalty and no monopoly. You simply cannot have "any and all royalty rates," like 100% of revenue or infinite dollars per unit or whatnot. Check out 35 USC 284.
Thankfully, we are now a first-to-file system, so we don't have to bother with pesky details like prior art dating back to the dawn of civilization.