This shouldn't be on slashdot . . . yet. The article merely talks about what his own attorneys are planning on arguing in court. I think he has a solid case, but let me know when a court hands down a real opinion.
The USPTO does not provide a single link for inventors or companies who have developed and patented technology to defend their rights. Not one. These types of entities deserve some sort of guidance as well.
thankfully PUBPAT won't have to defend itself against patent infringement for its website: any patents reading on this 1993-looking site have long since expired.
transfer patents to holding company with no assets, lose lawsuit, get big lawyer fee bill from opposing side, bankruptcy, game over try again with new shell company
Soverain is the assignee, meaning they bought the patents from somebody else. The original patentee is Open Market, Inc. http://www.openmarket.com/ is potentially their website (they provide checkout software). So the patents were originally filed by a practicing software company.
This doesn't necessarily do away with patent assertion entities (trolls). Many PAEs are not actually the original inventors/assignees of the patents, but rather buy them later on and begin filing infringement lawsuits. This requirement would, however, reduce the number of startups-turned-trolls who filed and were granted patents but never followed through with development. It also might make the provisional application system more useful, allowing start-ups to file provisionals to establish priority, but also requiring them to develop a working prototype before granting a utility patent.
I use vitamin D software to monitor the webcams in my apartment. http://www.vitamindinc.com/
It does a pretty good job detecting whether something is a person or not, and you can configure it to send you an email when it detects something. It also only records video surrounding an event.
The starter version is free and has some restrictions in terms of total cameras, but its not that expensive overall. Presumably a place that has a "restricted zone" has a security budget more than $0.
This is just wrong. I work with individual inventors all the time in order to help them sell or license their portfolios. Regardless of how the buyers or licensees plan on using the invention, at the end of the day the inventor has money in his or her pocket, and many use the funds to continue working on new projects. They have no doubt reaped the benefits of their patents, without litigation.
This isn't a submarine patent. It's a continuation claiming the 2000 priority of its parent, US 6,766,456. A submarine patent is a patent that, for some reason or another, takes a very long time from application filing to issuance, hence "popping up" like a submarine. This patent actually made it through the USPTO in under a year.
The claim still requires a 'processing circuit coupled to the touchscreen.' The disclosure also talks about a 'compare circuit.' I would think that a software implementation would not be covered by at least claim 1 of this patent. They may be able to argue software implementations are covered under doctrine of equivalents, but personally, I would think that dedicated hardware does not function in 'essentially the same way.'
They think it is invalid and yet use it as a reference in multiple patents? If they want to use it without paying a license fee, file a declaratory judgment suit claiming invalidity. Don't just use it and then act pissed off when the patent holder comes asking for some compensation.
Anyone else notice the large number of forward citations by Microsoft itself? They were clearly on notice of this patent, and Windows Phone and the tiled surface interface pretty clearly does exactly what claim 1 requires. Setting aside arguments of validity, does it really seem like Microsoft is behaving very ethically by doing exactly what the claim requires and not licensing (or outright purchasing) the patent, while they were very much on notice of its existence?
Really? This is insightful? You people just really be high to think that back in 1787 everybody was just sitting around being like "heheheheh yes Mr. Burns, we'll write all these laws so that the plebeians can't understand it and will have to hire us lawyers! We'll all be rich!"
Lawyers are there to help people when their legal rights are threatened.
Yes, because lawyers can raise the rights of others on their own. They're not hired by patent holders at all. Any person is able to represent themselves 'pro se.'
Theoretically, yes, looking at the text of Art 1, sec 8, Congress could completely do away with the patent system in its entirety. They also are supposedly granted the power to completely do away with all federal courts except for the Supreme Court, though this interpretation has been challenged numerous times. Also, as noted below, Congress is unlikely to want to strip itself of a constitutionally enumerated power, and will therefore necessitate a constitutional amendment, which will be the real obstacle.
I think an enormous non-aristocratic portion of the population would disagree. Plenty of constitutional clauses empower 'normal' people. You know, like the 14th amendment, the bill of rights, the 15th amendment, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
This shouldn't be on slashdot . . . yet. The article merely talks about what his own attorneys are planning on arguing in court. I think he has a solid case, but let me know when a court hands down a real opinion.
The USPTO does not provide a single link for inventors or companies who have developed and patented technology to defend their rights. Not one. These types of entities deserve some sort of guidance as well.
thankfully PUBPAT won't have to defend itself against patent infringement for its website: any patents reading on this 1993-looking site have long since expired.
http://bacolicio.us/http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/01/14/1914225/chinese-firm-can-now-produce-500-cloned-pigs-per-year
transfer patents to holding company with no assets, lose lawsuit, get big lawyer fee bill from opposing side, bankruptcy, game over try again with new shell company
Soverain is the assignee, meaning they bought the patents from somebody else. The original patentee is Open Market, Inc. http://www.openmarket.com/ is potentially their website (they provide checkout software). So the patents were originally filed by a practicing software company.
insightful.
Oh you mean like the Federal Circuit?
OIN is a very active patent buyer/aggregator. If members get hit, they have a massive portfolio to fire back with.
This doesn't necessarily do away with patent assertion entities (trolls). Many PAEs are not actually the original inventors/assignees of the patents, but rather buy them later on and begin filing infringement lawsuits. This requirement would, however, reduce the number of startups-turned-trolls who filed and were granted patents but never followed through with development. It also might make the provisional application system more useful, allowing start-ups to file provisionals to establish priority, but also requiring them to develop a working prototype before granting a utility patent.
I use vitamin D software to monitor the webcams in my apartment. http://www.vitamindinc.com/ It does a pretty good job detecting whether something is a person or not, and you can configure it to send you an email when it detects something. It also only records video surrounding an event. The starter version is free and has some restrictions in terms of total cameras, but its not that expensive overall. Presumably a place that has a "restricted zone" has a security budget more than $0.
clearwater, not clearview. my mistake.
It isn't owned by AT&T, though it was the original assignee. As you can see here, its changed hands a number of times: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&pat=5506866 Most recently (5/2012) the patent was assigned to "Clearview Innovations" Its info is listed here: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&asned=CLEARWATER%20INNOVATIONS,%20LLC It's possible that there was some unrecorded assignment after that, but based on available information from USPTO, Clearview is the current owner.
This is just wrong. I work with individual inventors all the time in order to help them sell or license their portfolios. Regardless of how the buyers or licensees plan on using the invention, at the end of the day the inventor has money in his or her pocket, and many use the funds to continue working on new projects. They have no doubt reaped the benefits of their patents, without litigation.
This isn't a submarine patent. It's a continuation claiming the 2000 priority of its parent, US 6,766,456. A submarine patent is a patent that, for some reason or another, takes a very long time from application filing to issuance, hence "popping up" like a submarine. This patent actually made it through the USPTO in under a year.
The claim still requires a 'processing circuit coupled to the touchscreen.' The disclosure also talks about a 'compare circuit.' I would think that a software implementation would not be covered by at least claim 1 of this patent. They may be able to argue software implementations are covered under doctrine of equivalents, but personally, I would think that dedicated hardware does not function in 'essentially the same way.'
They think it is invalid and yet use it as a reference in multiple patents? If they want to use it without paying a license fee, file a declaratory judgment suit claiming invalidity. Don't just use it and then act pissed off when the patent holder comes asking for some compensation.
Anyone else notice the large number of forward citations by Microsoft itself? They were clearly on notice of this patent, and Windows Phone and the tiled surface interface pretty clearly does exactly what claim 1 requires. Setting aside arguments of validity, does it really seem like Microsoft is behaving very ethically by doing exactly what the claim requires and not licensing (or outright purchasing) the patent, while they were very much on notice of its existence?
1. Take out battery 2. Throw phone into body of water.
OR tie all the students together like they do in urban elementary schools!
Really? This is insightful? You people just really be high to think that back in 1787 everybody was just sitting around being like "heheheheh yes Mr. Burns, we'll write all these laws so that the plebeians can't understand it and will have to hire us lawyers! We'll all be rich!" Lawyers are there to help people when their legal rights are threatened.
Agreed. If this is supposed to be a news site, at least present things as news articles, not as unqualified statements of opinion.
Yes, because lawyers can raise the rights of others on their own. They're not hired by patent holders at all. Any person is able to represent themselves 'pro se.'
Theoretically, yes, looking at the text of Art 1, sec 8, Congress could completely do away with the patent system in its entirety. They also are supposedly granted the power to completely do away with all federal courts except for the Supreme Court, though this interpretation has been challenged numerous times. Also, as noted below, Congress is unlikely to want to strip itself of a constitutionally enumerated power, and will therefore necessitate a constitutional amendment, which will be the real obstacle.
I think an enormous non-aristocratic portion of the population would disagree. Plenty of constitutional clauses empower 'normal' people. You know, like the 14th amendment, the bill of rights, the 15th amendment, etc.