Slashdot Mirror
"Patent Troll" Closes Controversial Podcast Patent Deal With SanDisk
wabrandsma writes "James Logan's patent company, Personal Audio, has closed a licensing agreement with SanDisk. The company says that now 'between a third and two thirds of all mp3 audio players' are made by companies to which its patents have been licensed, including LG, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Blackberry and Amazon. The Electronic Frontier Foundation wants to fight Personal Audio's podcasting patent at the US Patent and Trademark Office. About 30,000 dollars, was brought in earlier this year through crowdfunding to fight the case. Logan took part in a question-and-answer session here In June."
Kills the motivation to read on immediately.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Patent trolls only exist because patent examiners are approving patents without any idea what a significant advancement in the state of the art actually is. Educate the examiners so they quit just approving everyone who hands them a $20,000 check.
I look forward to a time when people respond to patent trolls with actual torches and pitchforks. Tar and feathers will also be acceptable.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
So this mean I could get a patent on Taking toilet paper, arranging the single sheets infront of me and then wiping my ass while taking detailed notes on the action. Great.
How is this differnt then posting files on a website and letting people download them and sort through them? Wasn't aware of this deliciosuly unique .podcast file extension.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I'm curious how many people have actually read the patent and know what the claims are.
Sometimes, we play "we have to tar and feather them to find out why we should tar and feather them".
Certainly, and that would be a central issue in any dispute over this patent. Therefore, for either party to make public statements on that issue other than "you can read it in the patent" would be stupid, for the same reason that it's stupid for criminal suspects to converse with the police.
The whole patent system was designed to encourage building physical things people used. Patents were never intended to cover the thought process or logic or eventual machine readable logic derived from the mind on how a person was to use a product.
New Zealand has just disallowed software patents and maybe that will proceed to other countries.
If you want your product methods & operation choices and commands to be secret, then obfuscate your code.
Yes, someone has read the patent.
The EFF have a prior art thread on stack exchange that makes for a more interesting read.
I wish people would stop using troll for everything.
"Oh you don't agree with my opinion 100%? THEN YOURE A TROLLL!!!!!!"
"You read about the guy who owns a patent, another company is using it without compensating him or asking permission and he is now suing them? HE IS A TROLL!!!!!!!"
What do you care? If he has a case he will win it, if he doesn't he will lose it. But all of you see someone sue for a patent and you automatically call them a troll with no real knowledge or personal insight into the case first hand. You see someone yell troll on the internet and jump on the wagon of assuming he is one.
First, I think most of you are misunderstanding "novelty" as it relates to patents, by thinking that whatever invention is patented must be novel TODAY in order to be valid.
Of course, that is absurd. The only thing that matters is that it was novel at the time the patent application was filed. I read the patent at issue here and, at the time the application was filed, the technology was certainly novel. The fact that it has BECOME ubiquitous is irrelevant and immaterial.
By the Slashdot community standards, if i invent something novel, patent it, and then sue someone for infringement 10 years later when the technology has been widely licensed and in use, I'm the troll.
For one that didn't include support for a patent troll. (or didn't have that silly slotradio option come to think of it) Isn't it high time to stop dealing with the US market? It's insane legal system alone makes that a good option
Not commenting on THIS case as i don't have all the facts, but not everyone that wants to enforce their IP rights is a troll..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And the same goes for microsoft making money from android phones.
I think an easy way to address patent trolling is to implement a loser-pays system if the suing party's patent is overturned in court. This will dissuade the trolls from exploiting the current situation where patents are used to extort settlements from people and small businesses that don't have the financial means to fight a bad patent. This doesn't require fixing the root problem of the USPTO issuing bad patents and would be easier to implement as a prelude to real patent reform.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
There should be a bounty for killing trollish patents. Usually, there are many targets who settle and sign royalty agreements with the patent troll before any target decides to fight them in court. First, all such agreements should be required to be public. Second, whenever a target successfully defeats a patent troll in court, all the future royalties that were previously agreed to should be cut in half, and paid to the party that defeated the patent troll. They should also be able to go after recovery of past royalties. If you are a patent troll, losing a case should be a financial death penalty.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
Back in the 1990s I used a Gartner service called "Talking Technology" (launched in 1995); basically a "podcast" on cassette tape, with a set of audio briefings on various technology topics delivered to subscribers at least once a month.
Other than being "on a computer", how is that any different from modern podcasts? Or deserving of a patent?
For patent # 6,199,076, I'd still like to hear Mr. Logan explain the differences and similarities between claim 1 and a 1950's juke box.