If I had mod points you'd be getting a +1:Insightful right now
If it does run the course it also depends on whether Google's claims of Fair Use stand against the copyright claims. I think they will, but have reservations about explaining a highly technical area of law to a jury.
Google appear to have a really good track record of defeating patent claims and seem willing to put the work in to do it, even if they could perhaps have settled for less, so I suspect that Google will run this to the end unless they get advised by their own lawyers to settle.
Would not have been as easy as you say - the livestock had to be in the towns and cities for the simple reason that refrigeration wasn't around, so any meat that wasn't riddled with worms, flies and mold had to be from fresh kills. That obviously leads to dung and stuff, which before modern day sewer systems, roadsweepers and refuse collection didn't go away
(Yes I know the Romans had sewers and refuse and dung collection, but most medieval cities found the volume of shit and refuse simply overwhelmed them).
As far as I know a decent 'flu pandemic (and I'm not talking about bird 'flu) would have almost the same effect as the 1918 one, assuming it struck during say a major worldwide depression and had a decent number of weakened population as a transmission medium,
Alsup did not deny Googles request - he said it was up to the magistrate judge (who he has handed off discovery issues to) to make a decision. Google and Oracle are still fighting like cats and dogs over the issue.
And the copyright brief is a brief, not a ruling, so this issue is still yet to be decided.
Maybe Slashdot contributors should leave legal reporting to the professionals...
...Australia has treaty obligations, most notably with the WTO, and taxes and forcible price settings are probably against one of the trade rules Australia agreed to. Forcing a set price can probably be interpreted as a form of tariff setting and may be interpreted as a breach of Free Trade rules by some clever shark^H^H^H^H^H lawyer
Which raises the interesting question as to whether you could somehow ensure that only correctly polarised photons are generated in the first place....
What patents _aren't_ awarded? The USPTO is swamped, and politicians view quantity of patents approved as a measure of scientific progress in the country.
I think this is over a design patent awarded in Europe; the USPTO doesn't come into it.
I must admit that I'm slightly puzzled by the award of a design patent to Apple as prior art certainly exists. One wonders what one has to do to challenge the validity of the patent in the EU?
I'm in favour of Android products over Apple, because there is normally a substantial price difference and Android offers a less restrictive environment. However, there is little to no price difference between the Samsung and the iPad, and you have to pay an extra £150 to fully load it with memory (i.e. you can't put your own memory card in), so I'm not so convinced of the advantages of the Tab over the iPad(s).
You are able to settle in any court, European or US. In England, settlements in matters before the court are often accompanied by what is called a Consent Order, where the parties reach a legally binding agreement and the judge signs off on it
I think Google probably is in the right, but I'm surprised that Google seems to be in 'bet the company' litigation over this, bearing in mind the runaway success of Android and its upside as far as Google is concerned. $100million bucks for billions in return seems like a small price to pay.
Mark Webbink has taken over as editor, even though PJ doesn't seem to be able to resist posting every now and then. I presume that as he was red Hats general counsel and is a Law Professor his view is one to take seriously, whether you agree with it or not.
The letter appears to be recent, filed Tuesday, and Groklaw doesn't appear to have got round to analysing it. They often provide paragraph by paragraph analysis and that takes more time.......
or any other part except the CLAIMS; the rest is irrelevant except to allow someone of ordinary skill in the art to understand what is claimed.
Here's an attempt at shoehorning Bittorrents operation to fit the claims, where I've perhaps stretched things further than a court would
1. A media distribution system, comprising:
Yes, BitTorrent is a media distribution system....
a media file database configured to store media files, wherein one or more of the media files have been compressed prior to storage in the media file database; Yes, Bit torrent has a media file "database" assuming a file system is a database - however one assumes the files are not compressed as they are stored in a normal file system
a computing device configured to receive user requests for delivery of the one or more of the media files stored in the media file database, This could describe the server you get a torrent file from, or the seeder of the torrent. lets assume the seeder as the rest works better this way...
the computing device further configured to: identify average network throughput between computing device and the requesting users; this again could describe the seeder... it doesn't directly identify network throughput, but it could be argued that it does so by the amount of the file it is able to send each requesting user...
and route the user requests for delivery of the requested one or more media files to a distribution server capable of servicing the user requests based upon at least the average networkthroughput; Bittorrent routes the requests for parts of the media files to a multiplicity of distribution servers, perhaps fitting the plurality of frames in claim 2.
and a distribution server coupled to the media file database, the distribution server configured to simultaneously deliver a single copy of the requested one or more of the media files identified in the routed user requests to the requesting users in less-than-real-time, The seeder (distribution server) delivers the file to multiple users in less-than-real-time; however it does this by sending parts of the file to different clients and each client networks together to get a whole set.
wherein the distribution server automatically adjusts delivery of the requested one or more media files to the requesting users based on current average network throughput between the distribution server and the requesting users. Again the distribution server (seeder) adjusts delivery by sending the client a list of other peers also downloading that file so that clients can download parts from each other through multiple connections.
Bit-torrent is a piss-poor fit to the patent really, but lawyers could stretch a point. You never know with these crazy patent lawyers.
Yes, there is lots of waffle in the Patent - this is actually good as it is often unusual for patents to offer this level of detail.
No, it has no reference to HTTP itself, which is a point to point data transmission system.
The claim to break/ challenge is the first one; all the others are dependent claims and moreover the dependent claims would all be regarded as obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art (of IT).
1. A media distribution system, comprising: a media file database configured to store media files, wherein one or more of the media files have been compressed prior to storage in the media file database; a computing device configured to receive user requests for delivery of the one or more of the media files stored in the media file database, the computing device further configured to: identify average networkthroughput between computing device and the requesting users; and route the user requests for delivery of the requested one or more media files to a distribution server capable of servicing the user requests based upon at least the average networkthroughput; and a distribution server coupled to the media file database, the distribution server configured to simultaneously deliver a single copy of the requested one or more of the media files identified in the routed user requests to the requestingusers in less-than-real-time, wherein the distribution server automatically adjusts delivery of the requested one or more media files to the requesting users based on current average network throughput between the distribution server and the requesting users.
One way of breaking the claim is that the patent is only for 1 media file database and one distribution server in claim 1, and a second media file database and distribution server in claim 14. None of the actual claims are for 'n' media file databases and 'm' distribution servers where n != m or n equal to m and greater than two. If this idea is novel I've just published it and officially open source it;-)
Incidentally, saying in the description that their patent is intended to be very broad don't make it so; only the specific claims matter, so you're right in that the initial waffle is not helpful to their patent.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had mod points you'd be getting a +1:Insightful right now
If it does run the course it also depends on whether Google's claims of Fair Use stand against the copyright claims. I think they will, but have reservations about explaining a highly technical area of law to a jury.
Google appear to have a really good track record of defeating patent claims and seem willing to put the work in to do it, even if they could perhaps have settled for less, so I suspect that Google will run this to the end unless they get advised by their own lawyers to settle.
Would not have been as easy as you say - the livestock had to be in the towns and cities for the simple reason that refrigeration wasn't around, so any meat that wasn't riddled with worms, flies and mold had to be from fresh kills. That obviously leads to dung and stuff, which before modern day sewer systems, roadsweepers and refuse collection didn't go away
(Yes I know the Romans had sewers and refuse and dung collection, but most medieval cities found the volume of shit and refuse simply overwhelmed them).
As far as I know a decent 'flu pandemic (and I'm not talking about bird 'flu) would have almost the same effect as the 1918 one, assuming it struck during say a major worldwide depression and had a decent number of weakened population as a transmission medium,
Or not?
...that in 7 weeks you could do a patch to Android 2.3.x to match Honeycomb's handling of photos and thus bypass the issue
Alsup did not deny Googles request - he said it was up to the magistrate judge (who he has handed off discovery issues to) to make a decision. Google and Oracle are still fighting like cats and dogs over the issue.
And the copyright brief is a brief, not a ruling, so this issue is still yet to be decided.
Maybe Slashdot contributors should leave legal reporting to the professionals...
...Australia has treaty obligations, most notably with the WTO, and taxes and forcible price settings are probably against one of the trade rules Australia agreed to. Forcing a set price can probably be interpreted as a form of tariff setting and may be interpreted as a breach of Free Trade rules by some clever shark^H^H^H^H^H lawyer
Which raises the interesting question as to whether you could somehow ensure that only correctly polarised photons are generated in the first place....
OMG I'm going all Trekkie...
What patents _aren't_ awarded? The USPTO is swamped, and politicians view quantity of patents approved as a measure of scientific progress in the country.
I think this is over a design patent awarded in Europe; the USPTO doesn't come into it.
I must admit that I'm slightly puzzled by the award of a design patent to Apple as prior art certainly exists. One wonders what one has to do to challenge the validity of the patent in the EU?
I'm in favour of Android products over Apple, because there is normally a substantial price difference and Android offers a less restrictive environment. However, there is little to no price difference between the Samsung and the iPad, and you have to pay an extra £150 to fully load it with memory (i.e. you can't put your own memory card in), so I'm not so convinced of the advantages of the Tab over the iPad(s).
Crazy idea: slashdot is a worlwide-reaching site. Why don't you post date/hours in terms of GMT?
Because the only USians who can deduct 6 from times are those with degrees....
Forbidding the Government to make any contract which it cannot terminate within 3 months of announcing its intention to do so.
I seem to recall that USia has a number of people trying to build home brew fusion reactors, why not have a few guys experimenting with fission??...
Comanche: Maximum Overkill and Werewolf v Commanche (1992 or so)
You are able to settle in any court, European or US. In England, settlements in matters before the court are often accompanied by what is called a Consent Order, where the parties reach a legally binding agreement and the judge signs off on it
...all the girls want to be Willow.
I mean if they had compared child sex abuse to a church path in Ireland, we would think it quite a good comparison...
I think Google probably is in the right, but I'm surprised that Google seems to be in 'bet the company' litigation over this, bearing in mind the runaway success of Android and its upside as far as Google is concerned. $100million bucks for billions in return seems like a small price to pay.
...the judge is trying to pressure both sides into reaching a settlement
Mark Webbink has taken over as editor, even though PJ doesn't seem to be able to resist posting every now and then. I presume that as he was red Hats general counsel and is a Law Professor his view is one to take seriously, whether you agree with it or not.
The letter appears to be recent, filed Tuesday, and Groklaw doesn't appear to have got round to analysing it. They often provide paragraph by paragraph analysis and that takes more time.......
Due to the wording of the Constitution, I can definitely see this law being challenged in the Supreme Court Real Soon Now
You can argue that a Bit torrent seeder is the server identified in the patent.
or any other part except the CLAIMS; the rest is irrelevant except to allow someone of ordinary skill in the art to understand what is claimed.
Here's an attempt at shoehorning Bittorrents operation to fit the claims, where I've perhaps stretched things further than a court would
1. A media distribution system, comprising:
Yes, BitTorrent is a media distribution system ....
a media file database configured to store media files, wherein one or more of the media files have been compressed prior to storage in the media file database;
Yes, Bit torrent has a media file "database" assuming a file system is a database - however one assumes the files are not compressed as they are stored in a normal file system
a computing device configured to receive user requests for delivery of the one or more of the media files stored in the media file database,
This could describe the server you get a torrent file from, or the seeder of the torrent. lets assume the seeder as the rest works better this way...
the computing device further configured to: identify average network throughput between computing device and the requesting users;
this again could describe the seeder... it doesn't directly identify network throughput, but it could be argued that it does so by the amount of the file it is able to send each requesting user...
and route the user requests for delivery of the requested one or more media files to a distribution server capable of servicing the user requests based upon at least the average networkthroughput;
Bittorrent routes the requests for parts of the media files to a multiplicity of distribution servers, perhaps fitting the plurality of frames in claim 2.
and a distribution server coupled to the media file database, the distribution server configured to simultaneously deliver a single copy of the requested one or more of the media files identified in the routed user requests to the requesting users in less-than-real-time,
The seeder (distribution server) delivers the file to multiple users in less-than-real-time; however it does this by sending parts of the file to different clients and each client networks together to get a whole set.
wherein the distribution server automatically adjusts delivery of the requested one or more media files to the requesting users based on current average network throughput between the distribution server and the requesting users.
Again the distribution server (seeder) adjusts delivery by sending the client a list of other peers also downloading that file so that clients can download parts from each other through multiple connections.
Bit-torrent is a piss-poor fit to the patent really, but lawyers could stretch a point. You never know with these crazy patent lawyers.
Yes, there is lots of waffle in the Patent - this is actually good as it is often unusual for patents to offer this level of detail.
No, it has no reference to HTTP itself, which is a point to point data transmission system.
The claim to break/ challenge is the first one; all the others are dependent claims and moreover the dependent claims would all be regarded as obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art (of IT).
1. A media distribution system, comprising: a media file database configured to store media files, wherein one or more of the media files have been compressed prior to storage in the media file database; a computing device configured to receive user requests for delivery of the one or more of the media files stored in the media file database, the computing device further configured to: identify average networkthroughput between computing device and the requesting users; and route the user requests for delivery of the requested one or more media files to a distribution server capable of servicing the user requests based upon at least the average networkthroughput; and a distribution server coupled to the media file database, the distribution server configured to simultaneously deliver a single copy of the requested one or more of the media files identified in the routed user requests to the requestingusers in less-than-real-time, wherein the distribution server automatically adjusts delivery of the requested one or more media files to the requesting users based on current average network throughput between the distribution server and the requesting users.
One way of breaking the claim is that the patent is only for 1 media file database and one distribution server in claim 1, and a second media file database and distribution server in claim 14. None of the actual claims are for 'n' media file databases and 'm' distribution servers where n != m or n equal to m and greater than two. If this idea is novel I've just published it and officially open source it ;-)
Incidentally, saying in the description that their patent is intended to be very broad don't make it so; only the specific claims matter, so you're right in that the initial waffle is not helpful to their patent.
..he look in the folder called 'Recycle Bin'