Please pardon my patent law ignorance, but why doesn't M$'s choice to not pursue monetary damages for the patent infringements not represent a legal abandonment of those patents? The defense of a patent is the sole responsibility of a holder to defend. Consequently, M$ has a legal responsibility to pursue due diligence. M$ should not be allowed to knowingly let an amount of time to pass while resulting damages pile up in their favor, effectively allowing the infringing company to do their work for them for free or at a penalty.
Going one step further, why doesn't M$ choice not to identify the specific infringed patents not represent an abandonment of all M$ owned patents?
No where in the constitution does it state that congress's ability to encourage science and useful art can be used as a tool for discrimination. Quite the opposite, the language of the constitution strongly suggests that the patent protection is done not for the sole good of the inventor or developer; but rather, for the good of the country as a whole. Consequently, how is shutting down competitors done for the good of the country? (Especially since the patent holder already holds such a significant market share) Discrimination in this case is committed by the big company by effectively not allowing smaller businesses with much fewer resources to compete through patent enforcement.
Finally, how can vague patent wording be legitimately concluded to infringe upon a specific implementation? Patent wording should be interpreted as it is written; meaning that if the patent holder could not or did not foresee the specific implementation, then the patent should not be infringed by the specific implementation. Translation: If a patent can possibly be interpreted as not being infringed upon by a specific implementation, then it should be interpreted as not infringing. Patent holders should not benefit from vague wording where they may "accidentally" benefit from that wording. Analogy: I am pretty sure that if a bank truck full of cash crashed into your yard that you would not have any claim to the money inside.
Slashdot Mirror
Please pardon my patent law ignorance, but why doesn't M$'s choice to not pursue monetary damages for the patent infringements not represent a legal abandonment of those patents? The defense of a patent is the sole responsibility of a holder to defend. Consequently, M$ has a legal responsibility to pursue due diligence. M$ should not be allowed to knowingly let an amount of time to pass while resulting damages pile up in their favor, effectively allowing the infringing company to do their work for them for free or at a penalty. Going one step further, why doesn't M$ choice not to identify the specific infringed patents not represent an abandonment of all M$ owned patents? No where in the constitution does it state that congress's ability to encourage science and useful art can be used as a tool for discrimination. Quite the opposite, the language of the constitution strongly suggests that the patent protection is done not for the sole good of the inventor or developer; but rather, for the good of the country as a whole. Consequently, how is shutting down competitors done for the good of the country? (Especially since the patent holder already holds such a significant market share) Discrimination in this case is committed by the big company by effectively not allowing smaller businesses with much fewer resources to compete through patent enforcement. Finally, how can vague patent wording be legitimately concluded to infringe upon a specific implementation? Patent wording should be interpreted as it is written; meaning that if the patent holder could not or did not foresee the specific implementation, then the patent should not be infringed by the specific implementation. Translation: If a patent can possibly be interpreted as not being infringed upon by a specific implementation, then it should be interpreted as not infringing. Patent holders should not benefit from vague wording where they may "accidentally" benefit from that wording. Analogy: I am pretty sure that if a bank truck full of cash crashed into your yard that you would not have any claim to the money inside.