Gartner's FIRST recommendation is to "Contact SCO to discuss its claims, compensation requirements and your potential future liability." Why don't you as a company simply paint a big bullseye on yourself and jump up and down until SCO notices you.
First, it's very bad advice to tell someone to admit to SCO that you have Linux 2.4 as well as draw attention to yourself when there's 1500 other companies that they are busy with. Sure, if you are one of the 1500 companies that received this "letter," then by all means communicate back or you'll likely be one of the parties named on the first lawsuit. (Does anyone have a copy of this letter to post or mail to me? I'd love to see it.) Otherwise, go evaluate your exposure, the risk associated with that exposure, as well as alternatives first before handing SCO the lube and bending over.
After all if you don't, the IRS will think you're cheating on her, and you know what kind of a jealous bitch she can be!
At least I know Gartner will never be competition for me or other attorneys!
Nice thought and good reasoning! However, the current law is that one still has to file for a copyright registration prior to filing suit. However, for those "legal eagles" out there I have found a couple things that will help you. First, you can file for an expedited registration for, you guessed it, an extra fee. Second, there ARE cases out there that as long as the registration has been received by the Copyright office, you can file. However, I will ALWAYS wait until receiving verification that it's been registered.
Finally, you cannot receive statutory damages (which are often a lot more than lost profits) unless the infringer infringes a registered copyright. So, if you think someone might be snagging your work, register the puppy!
Well, Microsoft will likely do one of the following things:
They will file their own application, copy at least one of Apple's claims exactly and invoke an interference proceeding in the USPTO, where the parties must show who was the first to invent. This is different than the "first to file" rule used in many countries, for in the U.S. it is the first to invent, provide they are diligent in furthering the invention, that owns the "rights" to it. This could also mean that Apple could end up with foreign rights, as they were the first to file (and assuming they filed internationally), and Microsoft could end up with domestic rights, if they were truly the first to invent.
The second option is that MS could attempt to invalidate the patent either by submitting prior art documents to the USPTO during the pendency of the application, or wait until they get sued and do it in court. The problem with the prior, is that all MS could do is submit the art (which is limited to public documents and does NOT include code and the like that wasn't published publicly, (e.g. complied programs that were out there)) and MS cannot argue or rebut Apple's arguments. Finally, anything they share with the USPTO and the examiner views it and allows the patent nonetheless, has little, if any, weight left to it during a trial. Of course the problem waiting for a trial is that damage accrue.
Third, they could take a license, prior to issuance of the patent, as a "know-how" license (one can't really license an applied for patent as it's not a "right" yet), and receive a patent license following issuance. It'd probably be cheaper now and a reasonable royalty rate will likely attach if the claims of the issued patent is substantially similar to the published patent and Apple provide actual notice (a letter) to MS of this issued patent and, of course, MS is found to infringe it.
So kids, the moral of the story...
Don't think with your dick.
Someone should have told this TA at the University of Iowa that.
The Daily Iowan reported that former UI teaching assistant Frederick Richard "Dick" Williams forced her to watch him mastrubate after telling him that she "would do anything to get a better grade in the class in which she was struggling but was required to pass for her nursing major."
He gave her the option of a "two-minute plan" where she would sit next to a naked Williams and touch his penis or a "five minute plan" where he would sit naked, but further away from her while she watched him touch himself.
"He had his arm around my chair, and he kept asking me if I'd ever seen this before," she said. "He then put my hand on his penis and told me to squeeze," she said, adding that he ejaculated into her hand and a handkerchief. "I told him that was disgusting, and he said, 'I'm sorry' and that he didn't want to take my virginity."
Thomas' defense denies that the alleged event ever happened.
However, anonymous sources have reported that the woman's grade was raised to a "C Mynuts."
So, the article states that if one gets married, within five years they will likely lose their "genius" for "music, painting and writing, as well as in criminal activity."
So, to sum it up, you get married you will not longer:
compose scores;
create masterpieces;
write the Great American novel; or
use peer-to-peer networks.
Gee, I'm glad you'll at least be able to have sex. Wait. Nevermind. You'll be married.
While a kneejerk reaction to abolish patents might seem attractive to some, it very well might take a constitutional amendment to do so. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Consitution provides that Congress shall "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
While one may argue that drafters such as Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine were biased in this area toward protecting writings and discoveries being authors and inventors, this requirement to provide patent and copyright protection is part of the Constitution that was ratified by the states.
Of course if you believe that inventions related to business methods aren't "discoveries" then lobby Congress, not the Supreme Court, to change the definition. Of course, even then, it'd have to live up to the Consitutional muster. Maybe a better course is to provide less than 20 years for a business method patent?
Finally, please remember that the S.Ct. didn't change the law, they simply said that all of us patent attorneys simply were wrong about it for the last 100 years or so!
Ironically, as registered patent attorneys have to "qualify" to sit for the USPTO examine by having a "hard" science degree (e.g. engineering or biology,)we registered patent attorneys tend to believe that the phrase "Intellectual Property Law" came from non-patent attorneys that wanted to "share" in the field.
Historically, registered patent attorneys not only practiced in the field of patents, but also in the fields of trademarks, copyrights, trade dress and trade secrets. However, other attorneys noticed that:
1.) Patent attorneys made good money; 2.) Patent attorneys are devoid of personalities; 3.) Since they had no personalities, it was easy to "steal" their clients for non-patent related matters; and 4.) There was plenty of work to go around.
So the began to call themselves "Intellectual Property Attorneys" and now practice in "our area." At least the area outside of patents, as they you HAVE to be registered to practice before the patent office.
Ok, from what I get, you want to collect on the award, not find another cause of action (ie. Copyright infringement).
You will likely need to place a lien on the company (e.g. a mechanic's lein). That way you can have legal claim to get the property you need via the sherrif (and the subsequent sherrif's sale of the property). Unfortunately, I'm not licensed in Nebraska so I can't really help you there.
Another option is to assign the judgement to a collection agency. You'll have to take pennies on the dollar (e.g. $0.70 on the $1.00) but you'll get your cash now and won't have to worry about the long process of collecting (and would be cheaper than hiring an attorney).
Netflix.com's patent (6,584,450) is surprisingly broad and the claims are NOT limited to DVDs or movies (although some dependant claims provide those limitation).
Hopefully they'll simply use it as a defensive mechanism to prevent others from suing them for patent infringement. But one never knows.
The independent claims read:
1. A method for renting items to customers, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
receiving one or more item selection criteria that indicates one or more items that a customer desires to rent;
providing to the customer up to a specified number of the one or more items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria; and
in response to receiving any of the items provided to the customer, providing to the customer one or more other items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria, wherein a total current number of items provided to the customer does not exceed the specified number.
and
16. A method for renting items to customers, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
receiving one or more item selection criteria that indicates one or more items that a customer desires to rent;
providing to the customer up to a specified number of the one or more items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria; and
in response to receiving any of the items provided to the customer, providing to the customer one or more other items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria, wherein a total number of items provided to the customer within a specified period of time does not exceed a specified limit.
Actually, patents filed now are granted 20 years from the date of filing of the earliest relied on filing (e.g. the continuation or continuation-in-part to which it claims priority). Granted, if the patent office unduly delays the process, the patent owner recoups the lost time, but patent owners have a strong incentive to not delay, as they lose patent enforcement time (one can only enforce an issued patent (and yes, I know about the notice of published patent and substantial simliar claims in the issued patent will allow for a reasonable royalty rate, but one still needs to get the patent issues and lost profits are almost always greater than royalties.)
Part of the problem is that patent examiners make $40k or so (and they have to live in the DC area) and their contempories (at least the good ones) START at $100k (and that's for someone fresh out of law school).
I'd be thrilled paying twice the filing fee if I knew the examiner was making in the six figure range, of course, someone making that cash would likely be more efficient than some of the examiners I have to deal with now.
I believe there's a misconception out there in this area, at least one I've seen on here repeatedly.
U.S. patent law not only requires one to publicly disclose their "idea" to get their 20 year monopoly from filing, but the patent owner must also "teach one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention" as well as disclose the "best mode" of practicing the invention.
In short, you can't simply claim something without knowing how to impliment it. Admittedly, there have been patents out there that aren't properly "enabled," however they are typically found to be invalid when litigated.
It's not a perfect system, but it's the one we have.
You're right in part. Even today one can file a Continuation-in-Part ("CIP") where you claim "priority" to part of your new invention to an older, co-pending application.
To quickly explain the "legalese": Priority simply is the earliest date that you can show you reduced the invention to practice (in this case, effectively via the filing rather than constructively by actually doing it) and can predate others.
Copending is an application that hasn't issued and is still pending before the USPTO.
Ok, back to the issue. When you file a CIP, you have to "disclaim", or give up, any additional years of protection beyond what you would get from the first invention. This avoids the legal "no-no" of "double patenting".
What we are seeing in the discussed case is that for patents filed before 1996, one would get 17 years from the date of issuance of the patent, while now one receives 20 years from the date of filing for the earliest "priority" filed patent (plus "extra time" if the USPTO jacks around with the application too long).
Therefore, in the present case, there probably was an appeal or two to the appeal board which CAN take many years each, as well as "dinking around" in the patent office. Although it may be possible to invalidate the patent in the courts if you can show that the patent owner intentionally and unduly delayed the process to an undue degree. However, this is a large burden for the defendant to prove.
Fortunately, with the new system, it encourages patent holders to expedite the process, at least on their end.
Slashdot Mirror
Gartner's FIRST recommendation is to "Contact SCO to discuss its claims, compensation requirements and your potential future liability." Why don't you as a company simply paint a big bullseye on yourself and jump up and down until SCO notices you.
First, it's very bad advice to tell someone to admit to SCO that you have Linux 2.4 as well as draw attention to yourself when there's 1500 other companies that they are busy with. Sure, if you are one of the 1500 companies that received this "letter," then by all means communicate back or you'll likely be one of the parties named on the first lawsuit. (Does anyone have a copy of this letter to post or mail to me? I'd love to see it.) Otherwise, go evaluate your exposure, the risk associated with that exposure, as well as alternatives first before handing SCO the lube and bending over.
After all if you don't, the IRS will think you're cheating on her, and you know what kind of a jealous bitch she can be!
At least I know Gartner will never be competition for me or other attorneys!
Nice thought and good reasoning! However, the current law is that one still has to file for a copyright registration prior to filing suit. However, for those "legal eagles" out there I have found a couple things that will help you. First, you can file for an expedited registration for, you guessed it, an extra fee. Second, there ARE cases out there that as long as the registration has been received by the Copyright office, you can file. However, I will ALWAYS wait until receiving verification that it's been registered.
Finally, you cannot receive statutory damages (which are often a lot more than lost profits) unless the infringer infringes a registered copyright. So, if you think someone might be snagging your work, register the puppy!
Well, Microsoft will likely do one of the following things:
They will file their own application, copy at least one of Apple's claims exactly and invoke an interference proceeding in the USPTO, where the parties must show who was the first to invent. This is different than the "first to file" rule used in many countries, for in the U.S. it is the first to invent, provide they are diligent in furthering the invention, that owns the "rights" to it. This could also mean that Apple could end up with foreign rights, as they were the first to file (and assuming they filed internationally), and Microsoft could end up with domestic rights, if they were truly the first to invent.
The second option is that MS could attempt to invalidate the patent either by submitting prior art documents to the USPTO during the pendency of the application, or wait until they get sued and do it in court. The problem with the prior, is that all MS could do is submit the art (which is limited to public documents and does NOT include code and the like that wasn't published publicly, (e.g. complied programs that were out there)) and MS cannot argue or rebut Apple's arguments. Finally, anything they share with the USPTO and the examiner views it and allows the patent nonetheless, has little, if any, weight left to it during a trial. Of course the problem waiting for a trial is that damage accrue.
Third, they could take a license, prior to issuance of the patent, as a "know-how" license (one can't really license an applied for patent as it's not a "right" yet), and receive a patent license following issuance. It'd probably be cheaper now and a reasonable royalty rate will likely attach if the claims of the issued patent is substantially similar to the published patent and Apple provide actual notice (a letter) to MS of this issued patent and, of course, MS is found to infringe it.
Or, MS could simply buy Apple. Heh.
So kids, the moral of the story... Don't think with your dick. Someone should have told this TA at the University of Iowa that. The Daily Iowan reported that former UI teaching assistant Frederick Richard "Dick" Williams forced her to watch him mastrubate after telling him that she "would do anything to get a better grade in the class in which she was struggling but was required to pass for her nursing major."
He gave her the option of a "two-minute plan" where she would sit next to a naked Williams and touch his penis or a "five minute plan" where he would sit naked, but further away from her while she watched him touch himself.
"He had his arm around my chair, and he kept asking me if I'd ever seen this before," she said. "He then put my hand on his penis and told me to squeeze," she said, adding that he ejaculated into her hand and a handkerchief. "I told him that was disgusting, and he said, 'I'm sorry' and that he didn't want to take my virginity."
Thomas' defense denies that the alleged event ever happened.
However, anonymous sources have reported that the woman's grade was raised to a "C Mynuts."
So, the article states that if one gets married, within five years they will likely lose their "genius" for "music, painting and writing, as well as in criminal activity."
So, to sum it up, you get married you will not longer: compose scores; create masterpieces; write the Great American novel; or use peer-to-peer networks.
Gee, I'm glad you'll at least be able to have sex. Wait. Nevermind. You'll be married.
While a kneejerk reaction to abolish patents might seem attractive to some, it very well might take a constitutional amendment to do so. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Consitution provides that Congress shall "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
While one may argue that drafters such as Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine were biased in this area toward protecting writings and discoveries being authors and inventors, this requirement to provide patent and copyright protection is part of the Constitution that was ratified by the states.
Of course if you believe that inventions related to business methods aren't "discoveries" then lobby Congress, not the Supreme Court, to change the definition. Of course, even then, it'd have to live up to the Consitutional muster. Maybe a better course is to provide less than 20 years for a business method patent?
Finally, please remember that the S.Ct. didn't change the law, they simply said that all of us patent attorneys simply were wrong about it for the last 100 years or so!
Ironically, as registered patent attorneys have to "qualify" to sit for the USPTO examine by having a "hard" science degree (e.g. engineering or biology,)we registered patent attorneys tend to believe that the phrase "Intellectual Property Law" came from non-patent attorneys that wanted to "share" in the field.
Historically, registered patent attorneys not only practiced in the field of patents, but also in the fields of trademarks, copyrights, trade dress and trade secrets. However, other attorneys noticed that:
1.) Patent attorneys made good money;
2.) Patent attorneys are devoid of personalities;
3.) Since they had no personalities, it was easy to "steal" their clients for non-patent related matters;
and
4.) There was plenty of work to go around.
So the began to call themselves "Intellectual Property Attorneys" and now practice in "our area." At least the area outside of patents, as they you HAVE to be registered to practice before the patent office.
But the important thing is I'm not bitter.
Ok, from what I get, you want to collect on the award, not find another cause of action (ie. Copyright infringement).
You will likely need to place a lien on the company (e.g. a mechanic's lein). That way you can have legal claim to get the property you need via the sherrif (and the subsequent sherrif's sale of the property). Unfortunately, I'm not licensed in Nebraska so I can't really help you there.
Another option is to assign the judgement to a collection agency. You'll have to take pennies on the dollar (e.g. $0.70 on the $1.00) but you'll get your cash now and won't have to worry about the long process of collecting (and would be cheaper than hiring an attorney).
Netflix.com's patent (6,584,450) is surprisingly broad and the claims are NOT limited to DVDs or movies (although some dependant claims provide those limitation).
Hopefully they'll simply use it as a defensive mechanism to prevent others from suing them for patent infringement. But one never knows.
The independent claims read:
1. A method for renting items to customers, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
receiving one or more item selection criteria that indicates one or more items that a customer desires to rent;
providing to the customer up to a specified number of the one or more items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria; and
in response to receiving any of the items provided to the customer, providing to the customer one or more other items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria, wherein a total current number of items provided to the customer does not exceed the specified number.
and
16. A method for renting items to customers, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
receiving one or more item selection criteria that indicates one or more items that a customer desires to rent;
providing to the customer up to a specified number of the one or more items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria; and
in response to receiving any of the items provided to the customer, providing to the customer one or more other items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria, wherein a total number of items provided to the customer within a specified period of time does not exceed a specified limit.
Actually, patents filed now are granted 20 years from the date of filing of the earliest relied on filing (e.g. the continuation or continuation-in-part to which it claims priority). Granted, if the patent office unduly delays the process, the patent owner recoups the lost time, but patent owners have a strong incentive to not delay, as they lose patent enforcement time (one can only enforce an issued patent (and yes, I know about the notice of published patent and substantial simliar claims in the issued patent will allow for a reasonable royalty rate, but one still needs to get the patent issues and lost profits are almost always greater than royalties.)
So "they" are fixing the system!
Part of the problem is that patent examiners make $40k or so (and they have to live in the DC area) and their contempories (at least the good ones) START at $100k (and that's for someone fresh out of law school).
I'd be thrilled paying twice the filing fee if I knew the examiner was making in the six figure range, of course, someone making that cash would likely be more efficient than some of the examiners I have to deal with now.
I believe there's a misconception out there in this area, at least one I've seen on here repeatedly.
U.S. patent law not only requires one to publicly disclose their "idea" to get their 20 year monopoly from filing, but the patent owner must also "teach one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention" as well as disclose the "best mode" of practicing the invention.
In short, you can't simply claim something without knowing how to impliment it. Admittedly, there have been patents out there that aren't properly "enabled," however they are typically found to be invalid when litigated.
It's not a perfect system, but it's the one we have.
You're right in part. Even today one can file a Continuation-in-Part ("CIP") where you claim "priority" to part of your new invention to an older, co-pending application.
To quickly explain the "legalese":
Priority simply is the earliest date that you can show you reduced the invention to practice (in this case, effectively via the filing rather than constructively by actually doing it) and can predate others.
Copending is an application that hasn't issued and is still pending before the USPTO.
Ok, back to the issue. When you file a CIP, you have to "disclaim", or give up, any additional years of protection beyond what you would get from the first invention. This avoids the legal "no-no" of "double patenting".
What we are seeing in the discussed case is that for patents filed before 1996, one would get 17 years from the date of issuance of the patent, while now one receives 20 years from the date of filing for the earliest "priority" filed patent (plus "extra time" if the USPTO jacks around with the application too long).
Therefore, in the present case, there probably was an appeal or two to the appeal board which CAN take many years each, as well as "dinking around" in the patent office. Although it may be possible to invalidate the patent in the courts if you can show that the patent owner intentionally and unduly delayed the process to an undue degree. However, this is a large burden for the defendant to prove.
Fortunately, with the new system, it encourages patent holders to expedite the process, at least on their end.