exactly. this would actually support the argument that amazon's lower prices would not affect these local bookstores that sell "hard to find" books. of course, that's not what the french government is trying to do. they're trying to protect all french bookstores at the expense of the average french consumer.
This is because patent law protects not just the use of a patented product but the sale as well. If Best Buy is selling a patented product, it is infringing.
I can understand where you're coming from. I can see this changing with the iPhone though. It has a larger screen and a full featured browser. Too bad it's going to cost at least $500.
I've been using Thunderbird and the WebMail add-on for months now with my Live Mail account. Just download the WebMail extension and the Hotmail extension here:
http://webmail.mozdev.org/installation.html
After you have it installed it, go here for how to set up webmail:
http://webmail.mozdev.org/setup.html
Then, to make it work with Live Mail, go to Thunderbird's Add-ons menu and click the options button for Hotmail. You might need to add a new domain (probably your school's domain). Then go to the accounts tab and select Hotmail Website (BETA) mode for the new domain you've created.
That should do it.
Under trademark law, you can't trademark a generic term like "phone." You also can't just add an "i" in front of a generic word to make it a trademark. Apple thus has a good argument that the word "iPhone" can't be trademarked. This cuts both ways though since that means other people should be able to use the mark "iPhone" as well, and Apple doesn't want that. It will likely just pay tons of money to Cisco to use the mark.
That's the whole point of the patent agreement. MS and Novell were never going to sue each other for patent infringement because of that exact reason. Both are software companies. Both have too much to lose in patent dispute. This whole deal was a business/marketing ploy. We should all be more worried about the patent trolls who don't have anything to lose. I can see a patent troll like NTP bringing the software industry to a halt because you can't counter-sue and gain leverage against someone that doesn't have any assets.
If GNOME ever gets sued for patent infringement, you can bet Novell will be at its defense. The only reason Novell is doing these deals with Microsoft is for money. It's a corporation whose purpose is to make money. GNOME is a large part of its revenue generating products. Thus, Novell will use its large patent portfolio to defend GNOME and any other OSS software it distributes to protect its revenue generating products.
All of this will be circumstantial evidence. Can they show 100% that it was the user that downloaded/deleted a file? No, but they only need to show a preponderance of the evidence, which is, statistically speaking, 51%. Can they show 51%, yes, very likely.
Except the fact that if you can recover a file, you can usually recover the date of creation/deletion of the file. So, unless you're going to lie about the date you purchased the hard drive, this may not help a whole lot.
The only problem with "open patents" is that unlike open source software, which anyone with a computer can develop, in order to file a decent patent, you'll need to pay a good lawyer anywhere from $6000 to $20,000.
Have you tried talking to a law firm that works on contingency fee? If your patent is truly valid, and these guys are infringing, I can't imagine there isn't a lawyer out there that won't take your case for a percentage of whatever you win in court.
Tarek on this season's Apprentice is supposed to be a genius MENSA member. His performance on the show, however, indicates he may be good at taking IQ tests, but when it comes to real life performance, people with lower IQ scores consistently outperform him.
NTP should have taken the first settlement offer. I don't remember the amount, but wasn't it in the hundreds of millions? Now it stands to get nothing.
You'd have to look at the prosecution history to make sure that the patent holder can even use the doctrine of equivalence. If, during the prosecution of the patent, the patent was submitted and subsequently rejected by the examiner, and the company limits or changes its patent in response to the examiner, then the patent holder is precluded from using the doctrine of equivalence. This means that the only way to infringe the patent is by literal infringement, which requires that the infringing product infringe every single element of a patent's claim.
Slashdot Mirror
exactly. this would actually support the argument that amazon's lower prices would not affect these local bookstores that sell "hard to find" books. of course, that's not what the french government is trying to do. they're trying to protect all french bookstores at the expense of the average french consumer.
This is because patent law protects not just the use of a patented product but the sale as well. If Best Buy is selling a patented product, it is infringing.
For those that are interested, the 4GB iPhone is on sale for $299 while supplies last: http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=BC784DCD&nplm=MA501LL/A
The price of the 8GB iPhone dropped as well to $399.
Didn't Apple file a bunch of patents related to the iPhone and specifically the touch screen?
How long before we see Apple's lawyers get on Nokia for patent infringement?
Don't forget, you can download a free trial here: http://www.apple.com/iwork/trial/
Yes. If you're a patent owner, you can exclude the sale, use, importing, of your patented product.
I can understand where you're coming from. I can see this changing with the iPhone though. It has a larger screen and a full featured browser. Too bad it's going to cost at least $500.
Probably because Tivo has a patent on DVR technology. See Tivo v. Echostar.
I've been using Thunderbird and the WebMail add-on for months now with my Live Mail account. Just download the WebMail extension and the Hotmail extension here: http://webmail.mozdev.org/installation.html After you have it installed it, go here for how to set up webmail: http://webmail.mozdev.org/setup.html Then, to make it work with Live Mail, go to Thunderbird's Add-ons menu and click the options button for Hotmail. You might need to add a new domain (probably your school's domain). Then go to the accounts tab and select Hotmail Website (BETA) mode for the new domain you've created. That should do it.
Under trademark law, you can't trademark a generic term like "phone." You also can't just add an "i" in front of a generic word to make it a trademark. Apple thus has a good argument that the word "iPhone" can't be trademarked. This cuts both ways though since that means other people should be able to use the mark "iPhone" as well, and Apple doesn't want that. It will likely just pay tons of money to Cisco to use the mark.
That's the whole point of the patent agreement. MS and Novell were never going to sue each other for patent infringement because of that exact reason. Both are software companies. Both have too much to lose in patent dispute. This whole deal was a business/marketing ploy. We should all be more worried about the patent trolls who don't have anything to lose. I can see a patent troll like NTP bringing the software industry to a halt because you can't counter-sue and gain leverage against someone that doesn't have any assets.
If GNOME ever gets sued for patent infringement, you can bet Novell will be at its defense. The only reason Novell is doing these deals with Microsoft is for money. It's a corporation whose purpose is to make money. GNOME is a large part of its revenue generating products. Thus, Novell will use its large patent portfolio to defend GNOME and any other OSS software it distributes to protect its revenue generating products.
I don't know if it has anything to do with Oracle, but the rest of parent's comment is right on.
All of this will be circumstantial evidence. Can they show 100% that it was the user that downloaded/deleted a file? No, but they only need to show a preponderance of the evidence, which is, statistically speaking, 51%. Can they show 51%, yes, very likely.
Except the fact that if you can recover a file, you can usually recover the date of creation/deletion of the file. So, unless you're going to lie about the date you purchased the hard drive, this may not help a whole lot.
Isn't this talking about the same thing as this article: http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/04/06/23302 49.shtml?tid=191&tid=14
which was posted here over a year ago?
I guess this is pretty good for slashdot to go over a year without reposting a similar story.
Since this case was settled, it doesn't mean anything. It just means Creative was willing to drop the lawsuit for $100 million.
The only problem with "open patents" is that unlike open source software, which anyone with a computer can develop, in order to file a decent patent, you'll need to pay a good lawyer anywhere from $6000 to $20,000.
Have you tried talking to a law firm that works on contingency fee? If your patent is truly valid, and these guys are infringing, I can't imagine there isn't a lawyer out there that won't take your case for a percentage of whatever you win in court.
Tarek on this season's Apprentice is supposed to be a genius MENSA member. His performance on the show, however, indicates he may be good at taking IQ tests, but when it comes to real life performance, people with lower IQ scores consistently outperform him.
Hasn't this been done? It's called Wine.
This will be good for MS up to a point because it cuts against the argument that MS is a monopoly.
Here's a clip of someone that got video to work on his Nano using Linux.
NTP should have taken the first settlement offer. I don't remember the amount, but wasn't it in the hundreds of millions? Now it stands to get nothing.
You'd have to look at the prosecution history to make sure that the patent holder can even use the doctrine of equivalence. If, during the prosecution of the patent, the patent was submitted and subsequently rejected by the examiner, and the company limits or changes its patent in response to the examiner, then the patent holder is precluded from using the doctrine of equivalence. This means that the only way to infringe the patent is by literal infringement, which requires that the infringing product infringe every single element of a patent's claim.