As a patent lawyer, I can tell you that technology lawyers don't like engineers on the jury because they jury will give that juror's opinion inordinate weight. If that engineer completely misunderstands the technology, or doesn't like one of the parties, they can steer the entire jury one direction because they will use their outside knowledge to "teach" the jury. Rather than relying upon what evidence was given in trial, the jury will follow the lead of the one engineer, even if that one engineer is wrong.
Says someone who has clearly not tried to prosecute any patents before the USPTO. Their approval rate for software patents has dropped a huge amount.
Plus, this isn't even a patent, just a patent application. It hasn't been examined by the patent office at all.
And juries have never been wrong before? Perhaps the judge was upholding the principles of our Republic by preventing the tyranny of the majority because they were clearly wrong. I would bet lots of money that you haven't even read the judge's decision, but are just spouting off at the mouth. Another fine day for Slashdot.
There are multiple dates that matter in patent law:
conception - the day someone came up with the invention
reduction to pracice - the day someone figured out how to fully make the invention (after functional testing, etc)
filing date - the actual day the patent application was filed
publication date - the day the patent application is published (usually about 1 and 1/2 years after filing)
grant date - the day when the patent comes into effect
Damages are only available back until the publication date at the earliest, and that is only if the patent claims didn't change during the time between publication and grant. Prior art has to be known either more than one year before filing, or before conception.
As a side note, pre-filing damages weren't available in this case anyway because the patent was never published prior to issuance (it wasn't even available at that time). Also, you can only get damages going back six years from the date of the filing of a complaint in patent suits anyways.
You can get patent insurance, but these days it tends to be very expensive and have lots of loopholes. One the main reasons it can be expensive is because one of the largest costs companies want to offset is the cost of getting around an injunction. However, that can be very expensive, and very hard to determine.
Patent coverage is effective on date of filing; but only actionable after the patent is issued. That is, if you file in 1987, you have to wait until the patent is issued (1991) until you can start enforcing it---even against those who started using the patented idea in 1990. But, the patent coverage runs for 20 years from filing date (even then).[1] The patent was filed in March, 1987, which means the patent should have expired by now.
You are wrong. Because a patentee has no rights prior to the issuance of a patent, patent damages are not generally available prior to issuance. This was recently changed with the availability of patent publication in the United States. Now, a patentee can get damages back to the date the patent was published, if the claim found to be infringing is substantially identical to a published claim.
Also, as the previous poster noted, the term of United States patents changed after this patent was granted. For patents in force before 1995, the patent lasts the greater of 20 years after filing or 17 years after grant. Thus, this patent is in force until 2008.
Their terms of use is a contract that is granting you the rights to use their copyrighted product. The reason that Blizzard can impose terms of use is because of their legal rights in their product. Thus, when you violate their terms of use, you lose any rights you have to use their product. Thus, they can sue you for copyright infringement.
Somebody please mod this up. Slashmods are TERRIBLE about pushing patent stories that are false. I would bet that approximately 75% of all stories regarding patents on Slashdot are materially wrong. If the guys at/. want a primer on patent law, feel free to email me and I would be more than happy to teach them a thing or two.
Does it bother anyone that the lead author of this report is Thomas D. Sydnor II? Before joining the USPTO, he was an attorney at Arnold & Porter, the RIAA's main outside law firm. While at Arnold & Porter, he litigated patent and copyright cases. I have no clue whether he actually did work for the RIAA, but the contacts are interesting.
Reexaminations cause a change to be made in the claims in 70%. In only 12% are all of the claims cancelled. In the remaining cases, the applicant amends at least one of the claims. However, that really doesn't mean that much as most patents have 20-30 admitted claims. As a patent litigator, I find reexams mostly useless because the Patent Office cannot look at any art other than patents and printed publications. Also, in inter partes reexams (the most common type), the person requesting the reexam only has one shot to say anything. After the reexam starts, it is all between the PTO and the patent holder. During litigation, I can have my experts, my clients, and myself telling the court why the patent is invalid.
You are wrong. You are confusing copyright protection with patent protection. As an author, you automatically receive copyright protection for any work that you create. However, you can file for a registered copyright that will give you greater teeth to enforce your copyright. Copyrights, however, only protect the artistic embodiment of an idea (say the source code for a program) and not the idea itself. The cost of getting a registered copyright is minimal ($40).
Patent protection only comes from filing a patent application and having it granted. There is no automatic patent protection based solely upon inventing something. Patents protect inventions themselves, not just a particular implementation of an invention. The fees for getting a patent run about $1000, but patents are generally not something you can do yourself, and the attorney fees for writing a patent tend to be in the $10,000 range.
Good list. On the IP front, the article made one very stupid comment:
"Patent protection does serve one useful purpose: it can make investors feel warm and fuzzy, especially naive investors. But I strongly recommend that you do your own patent filings. It's not hard to do once you learn how (get the Nolo Press book "Patent it Yourself"). You'll do a better job than most patent attorneys and save yourself a lot of money."
I am a patent litigator, and I would LOVE to defend someone from infringement based upon a patent that was written pro se. While I agree that the Nolo book is one of the best, don't file anything other than a provision patent application yourself. The filing of a provisional will give you 1 year to market your application to VCs and other investors before having to lay out the money for a real application. A quality patent prosecutor is worth their weight in gold if you ever plan on licensing or litigating the patent, and good prosecutors are not that much more expensive over the course of the application than cheap fly-by-nighters.
Will someone please mod the parent down? Microsoft is filing a petition for cert. so that the Supreme Court can overturn the current interpretation of this law. Despite everyone's hatred for Microsoft, they are actually promoting the position that would be most beneficial for OSS. The U.S. government is also supporting this interpretation. From the article:
The Government argues that the extraterritorial nature of U.S. patents should be narrowly construed and that if someone wants rights to stop foreign infringement, then they should get foreign patents.
AT&T is the one trying to enforce their U.S. patents, not Microsoft.
I was working at IBM in their Thinkpad support group when Win95 was rolled out. We had a special group created to handle Win95 support calls of techs who had taken training on Win95 on the IBM machines. I remember my first call after getting put on the Win95 support que. At this point in time, IBM had approximately 30 minute wait times to get to a Win95 support rep. After I pick up the phone, a guy tells me hae is having problems with Win95 on his new laptop that he bought. After confirming his serial number I asked him what the problem was. His exact answer:
"Solitaire is dealing me the wrong cards."
The mute button was my friend that day.
In the United States (and definately not Europe), there are several ways that the public use of a product can be prior art to a patent. First, if the prior art conceived of before you conceived of your invention, then you cannot get a patent on it (who came up with the idea first). Second, if the invention was publicly used more than one year prior to the date of your patent application, then you are barred from getting a patent (regardless of who invented it first). Thus, in the case of Microsoft, they could argue that they conceived of the invention before Apple did, and that they iPod was not in public use (or on sale) more than one year before they filed their patent application.
The law that describes what qualifies as prior art is 35 U.S.C. 102.
I am not saying that people shouldn't be able to clone Apple products. I just think that Apple deserves to have some lead time before the clones come out. If Apple wanted to, they could patent everything and its brother and start a stringent enforcement campaign of its patents. So, I don't have a problem with Apple getting a few weeks of exclusivity between it and its licensees for its products. They get this couple of weeks by keeping their trade secrets actually secret as close to release as they can.
I feel symphathy for Apple on this one. Apple makes it money by getting behind innovative products that sell well. They need to be able to project an image that they will not tolerate people releasing their trade secrets, because Apple loses significant amounts of money to people cloning their products. While a Firewire breakout box isn't a big deal, think of the amount of money that people make putting out unlicensed accessories for the iPod. Apple wants to have some time while its product is out on the market that it gets the revenue stream from accessories before cloners get their products on the market.
I remember that this became an issue when someone got credit cards issued in Bill Gates's name. His SSN was listed on SEC filings because he was a majority holder of Microsoft stock. They have since changed the listing requirement with the SEC.
I wonder how this will play with the JBoss and Microsoft agreement that was made in September. That deal was for Microsoft to work with JBoss so that JBoss can run better on MS servers. Clearly, having JBoss run better on Microsoft servers is against the interests of Red Hat.
Red Hat wants the support contracts that JBoss has. That is where these companies are trying to make money. I bet that Red Hat will start offering a consolidated support contract that will offer support for both JBoss and Red Hat when you are running JBoss on Red Hat. People who are paying money for JBoss support will be more than willing to push out a couple of bucks for Red Hat support as well.
Red Hat couldn't create their own support group for the JBoss application server because of the complexity of the technology and the lack (and cost of acquiring)of people with the Java skills to understand it in-depth. Also, Red Hat didn't have the reputation of providing world-class support for Java. Now it will.
Having been burnt on his first startup, I suspect that Marc got pretty good terms on the deal. JBoss has been running in the black, and their connections with some big clients could help Red Hat get more service contracts. I think that the acquisition makes sense, because it will help push Red Hat into the high end service area even more (i.e. where the real money is).
I do wonder how well Red Hat will be able to manage the diverse group of people working for JBoss. I am sure that not all of them will be happy with the buyout. Considering the international nature of JBoss workforce, I suspect the Red Hat might have some difficulties managing them.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who has ever practiced in front of Alsup knows that he is far from clueless.
As a patent lawyer, I can tell you that technology lawyers don't like engineers on the jury because they jury will give that juror's opinion inordinate weight. If that engineer completely misunderstands the technology, or doesn't like one of the parties, they can steer the entire jury one direction because they will use their outside knowledge to "teach" the jury. Rather than relying upon what evidence was given in trial, the jury will follow the lead of the one engineer, even if that one engineer is wrong.
Says someone who has clearly not tried to prosecute any patents before the USPTO. Their approval rate for software patents has dropped a huge amount. Plus, this isn't even a patent, just a patent application. It hasn't been examined by the patent office at all.
And juries have never been wrong before? Perhaps the judge was upholding the principles of our Republic by preventing the tyranny of the majority because they were clearly wrong. I would bet lots of money that you haven't even read the judge's decision, but are just spouting off at the mouth. Another fine day for Slashdot.
People like the mafia, they like zombie flicks...how could it fail? I have a great name for it: "Cleaver"
- conception - the day someone came up with the invention
- reduction to pracice - the day someone figured out how to fully make the invention (after functional testing, etc)
- filing date - the actual day the patent application was filed
- publication date - the day the patent application is published (usually about 1 and 1/2 years after filing)
- grant date - the day when the patent comes into effect
Damages are only available back until the publication date at the earliest, and that is only if the patent claims didn't change during the time between publication and grant. Prior art has to be known either more than one year before filing, or before conception.As a side note, pre-filing damages weren't available in this case anyway because the patent was never published prior to issuance (it wasn't even available at that time). Also, you can only get damages going back six years from the date of the filing of a complaint in patent suits anyways.
You can get patent insurance, but these days it tends to be very expensive and have lots of loopholes. One the main reasons it can be expensive is because one of the largest costs companies want to offset is the cost of getting around an injunction. However, that can be very expensive, and very hard to determine.
Also, as the previous poster noted, the term of United States patents changed after this patent was granted. For patents in force before 1995, the patent lasts the greater of 20 years after filing or 17 years after grant. Thus, this patent is in force until 2008.
Their terms of use is a contract that is granting you the rights to use their copyrighted product. The reason that Blizzard can impose terms of use is because of their legal rights in their product. Thus, when you violate their terms of use, you lose any rights you have to use their product. Thus, they can sue you for copyright infringement.
Somebody please mod this up. Slashmods are TERRIBLE about pushing patent stories that are false. I would bet that approximately 75% of all stories regarding patents on Slashdot are materially wrong. If the guys at /. want a primer on patent law, feel free to email me and I would be more than happy to teach them a thing or two.
Does it bother anyone that the lead author of this report is Thomas D. Sydnor II? Before joining the USPTO, he was an attorney at Arnold & Porter, the RIAA's main outside law firm. While at Arnold & Porter, he litigated patent and copyright cases. I have no clue whether he actually did work for the RIAA, but the contacts are interesting.
Reexaminations cause a change to be made in the claims in 70%. In only 12% are all of the claims cancelled. In the remaining cases, the applicant amends at least one of the claims. However, that really doesn't mean that much as most patents have 20-30 admitted claims. As a patent litigator, I find reexams mostly useless because the Patent Office cannot look at any art other than patents and printed publications. Also, in inter partes reexams (the most common type), the person requesting the reexam only has one shot to say anything. After the reexam starts, it is all between the PTO and the patent holder. During litigation, I can have my experts, my clients, and myself telling the court why the patent is invalid.
You are wrong. You are confusing copyright protection with patent protection. As an author, you automatically receive copyright protection for any work that you create. However, you can file for a registered copyright that will give you greater teeth to enforce your copyright. Copyrights, however, only protect the artistic embodiment of an idea (say the source code for a program) and not the idea itself. The cost of getting a registered copyright is minimal ($40). Patent protection only comes from filing a patent application and having it granted. There is no automatic patent protection based solely upon inventing something. Patents protect inventions themselves, not just a particular implementation of an invention. The fees for getting a patent run about $1000, but patents are generally not something you can do yourself, and the attorney fees for writing a patent tend to be in the $10,000 range.
I was working at IBM in their Thinkpad support group when Win95 was rolled out. We had a special group created to handle Win95 support calls of techs who had taken training on Win95 on the IBM machines. I remember my first call after getting put on the Win95 support que. At this point in time, IBM had approximately 30 minute wait times to get to a Win95 support rep. After I pick up the phone, a guy tells me hae is having problems with Win95 on his new laptop that he bought. After confirming his serial number I asked him what the problem was. His exact answer:
"Solitaire is dealing me the wrong cards."
The mute button was my friend that day.
The law that describes what qualifies as prior art is 35 U.S.C. 102.
I am not saying that people shouldn't be able to clone Apple products. I just think that Apple deserves to have some lead time before the clones come out. If Apple wanted to, they could patent everything and its brother and start a stringent enforcement campaign of its patents. So, I don't have a problem with Apple getting a few weeks of exclusivity between it and its licensees for its products. They get this couple of weeks by keeping their trade secrets actually secret as close to release as they can.
I feel symphathy for Apple on this one. Apple makes it money by getting behind innovative products that sell well. They need to be able to project an image that they will not tolerate people releasing their trade secrets, because Apple loses significant amounts of money to people cloning their products. While a Firewire breakout box isn't a big deal, think of the amount of money that people make putting out unlicensed accessories for the iPod. Apple wants to have some time while its product is out on the market that it gets the revenue stream from accessories before cloners get their products on the market.
I remember that this became an issue when someone got credit cards issued in Bill Gates's name. His SSN was listed on SEC filings because he was a majority holder of Microsoft stock. They have since changed the listing requirement with the SEC.
I wonder how this will play with the JBoss and Microsoft agreement that was made in September. That deal was for Microsoft to work with JBoss so that JBoss can run better on MS servers. Clearly, having JBoss run better on Microsoft servers is against the interests of Red Hat.
Red Hat couldn't create their own support group for the JBoss application server because of the complexity of the technology and the lack (and cost of acquiring)of people with the Java skills to understand it in-depth. Also, Red Hat didn't have the reputation of providing world-class support for Java. Now it will.
Having been burnt on his first startup, I suspect that Marc got pretty good terms on the deal. JBoss has been running in the black, and their connections with some big clients could help Red Hat get more service contracts. I think that the acquisition makes sense, because it will help push Red Hat into the high end service area even more (i.e. where the real money is). I do wonder how well Red Hat will be able to manage the diverse group of people working for JBoss. I am sure that not all of them will be happy with the buyout. Considering the international nature of JBoss workforce, I suspect the Red Hat might have some difficulties managing them.
Some moderator needs to get a life.