I don't see how Google's actions are hypocritical. What is the link between four patents owned by Oracle and Google's entire patent portfolio? If Google's patents are a: invalid and/or b: standing in the way of progress, rest assured Google's competitors will contest their validity, much the same as Google has done here.
...because if any of the patents are found to be unenforceable, because of either prior art or obviousness, then Oracle's suit falls apart.
It's important to understand that in reevaluation, Oracle's patents would not be considered unenforceable, but simply not patentable as being anticipated or obvious. In reexamination, there is no patent
I've always thought reexamination was a good litigation strategy. There is no presumption of validity, the cost to Google is quite small, and if you believe the Patent Office is reliable in making anticipation/obviousness determinations, then this gives them a more complete body of prior art upon which to make those decisions. Moreover, if Google requested inter partes reexamination, they can still play a role in the examination process and explain an alternative view to the examiner.
Apple needs to work on their claim drafting. IMO claim 1 doesn't recite patentable subject matter. I know Bilski rendered the machine-or-transformation test to no longer be the sole test, but to me that test is failed by claim 1, which makes the eventual allowance of a method claim of that sort unlikely. I'm interested to see how the "control circuitry operable" language of claim 12 plays out, as if it means circuitry able to perform the listed functions, that seems to me that it would fail novelty.
Your search for a clearly defined boundary of fair use boils down to this question; would you prefer that Congress decide the issue, or would you prefer the courts decide? I would argue that the Courts are better situated, in this context, to figure out what uses out to be protected under fair use. This is so due to the significant implications of rights gained under fair use. If you accept that copyright generally is a good, productive, successful inducement scheme to yield creative works, then taking some of those rights given under copyright away shouldn't be done lightly. The more you expand fair use, the less valuable a given copyright will be to the original author. Given that Congress has to act in a uniform manner and isn't able to feel out the edges of the ramifications of fair use, I posit that courts will produce the most fair and practicable rule for both parties.
In my experience, the majority of people who buy HDTVs and plan to make full use of the improved resolution are those who watch sports. Furthermore, it seems like a reasonable assumption that those who enjoy watching sports are more likely to play sports titles, instead of Gears of War. So when the person interviewed in the article says "imagine what it will be like for FIFA," I think he's got it backwards; I think you will find greater use for included HDMI cables for that population.
Two things. First, pretty much all software sales include a provision that if you do not accept the terms of the EULA, you can return the software and be reimbursed the purchase price. Second, purchasers are made aware that there are additional terms included other than those on the box (or at the time of download). If the software provider has satisfied both of these requirements, there really isn't much problem with an EULA. (Both of these were pretty crucial in ProCD and Hill cases)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how Google's actions are hypocritical. What is the link between four patents owned by Oracle and Google's entire patent portfolio? If Google's patents are a: invalid and/or b: standing in the way of progress, rest assured Google's competitors will contest their validity, much the same as Google has done here.
I meant reexamination, not reevaluation
...because if any of the patents are found to be unenforceable, because of either prior art or obviousness, then Oracle's suit falls apart.
It's important to understand that in reevaluation, Oracle's patents would not be considered unenforceable, but simply not patentable as being anticipated or obvious. In reexamination, there is no patent
I've always thought reexamination was a good litigation strategy. There is no presumption of validity, the cost to Google is quite small, and if you believe the Patent Office is reliable in making anticipation/obviousness determinations, then this gives them a more complete body of prior art upon which to make those decisions. Moreover, if Google requested inter partes reexamination, they can still play a role in the examination process and explain an alternative view to the examiner.
Apple needs to work on their claim drafting. IMO claim 1 doesn't recite patentable subject matter. I know Bilski rendered the machine-or-transformation test to no longer be the sole test, but to me that test is failed by claim 1, which makes the eventual allowance of a method claim of that sort unlikely. I'm interested to see how the "control circuitry operable" language of claim 12 plays out, as if it means circuitry able to perform the listed functions, that seems to me that it would fail novelty.
Patents are easily abusable government monopolies that often violate free speech.
Sounds like someone has a bone to pick.
Your search for a clearly defined boundary of fair use boils down to this question; would you prefer that Congress decide the issue, or would you prefer the courts decide? I would argue that the Courts are better situated, in this context, to figure out what uses out to be protected under fair use. This is so due to the significant implications of rights gained under fair use. If you accept that copyright generally is a good, productive, successful inducement scheme to yield creative works, then taking some of those rights given under copyright away shouldn't be done lightly. The more you expand fair use, the less valuable a given copyright will be to the original author. Given that Congress has to act in a uniform manner and isn't able to feel out the edges of the ramifications of fair use, I posit that courts will produce the most fair and practicable rule for both parties.
In my experience, the majority of people who buy HDTVs and plan to make full use of the improved resolution are those who watch sports. Furthermore, it seems like a reasonable assumption that those who enjoy watching sports are more likely to play sports titles, instead of Gears of War. So when the person interviewed in the article says "imagine what it will be like for FIFA," I think he's got it backwards; I think you will find greater use for included HDMI cables for that population.
Two things. First, pretty much all software sales include a provision that if you do not accept the terms of the EULA, you can return the software and be reimbursed the purchase price. Second, purchasers are made aware that there are additional terms included other than those on the box (or at the time of download). If the software provider has satisfied both of these requirements, there really isn't much problem with an EULA. (Both of these were pretty crucial in ProCD and Hill cases)