Yes, as I said, with respect to a GUI or OS, the term "windows" is somewhat suggestive and there is some evidence supporting its prior use in similar areas. But it was hardly "generic". I doubt (although I really don't know) the term was so widespread prior to Microsoft that everyone would commonly use the term "windows" to mean a GUI system. A few isolated uses in a handful of companies isn't enough to be generic.
But a patent does NOT give the right to "exclusive possession or control". Simply because you have a patent on something does not mean that you can actually use it. If Edison patents the light-bulb and then I come along and patent the florescent light-bulb, I can NOT make a florescent light-bulb without Edison's permission. A patent simply gives the right to exclude others, it does not give you the right to practice an invention yourself, exclusively or otherwise.
It's generally a good document answering basic questions on software patents, but the answer to the first question makes me cringe: "What is a patent? A patent is a state-granted monopoly..."
A patent is not a monopoly. A monopoly, implies that a person have market power: that they can set the price of a product above what it would be in the free market. However, a patent does not grant such power. The vast majority of patents are for useless inventions and would not be able to demand any market power. But even useful patents don't necessarily confer monopolies. I doubt there is a single software patent that confers a "monopoly" on the patent holder. Any infringing software can be modified to work around just about any software patent. For example, if you have a patent on quicksort, I'll use merge-sort. If you have a patent on binary search, I'll write a ternary search algorithm. Patents do not confer monopoly power, they only confer the right to exclude others from infringing on the patent.
Just a bit of nit-picking in a generally good document.
The term "windows" with respect to a part of your house is definitely generic. The term "windows" with respect to an OS is not. Much like how the term "apple" is generic for fruit, but not for computers. The legal term for this type of use is "fanciful": a common word that is relatively meaningless in a given context. That said, "windows" is not totally meaningless with respect to a GUI, it has a suggestive meaning as well making it a bit less inherently distinctive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness#Arbitrary_marks
I generally agree. James Webb is great science, but at a huge cost that could most likely be spent more effectively elsewhere. Space telescopes are sexy and are attractive to congressmen that want to work on "bold projects." But often the best science comes in smaller increments. I'm all for increasing space and science funding, but in a world of limited resources, you still need to prioritize.
Take a look at the article below for a critical view of the James Webb telescope:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110605/NEWS01/110604013/Telescope-debacle-devours-NASA-funds
X creates a product with some new feature, but does NOT patent it.
Later on, Y invents the same feature independently and patents it.
Under both systems, old and new, if Y tries to enforce their patent, it will be invalidated by X's feature. Once, Y's patent is invalidated, anyone can use that feature including X. This is the situation you described and it would not matter which system was used.
The problems raised with new patent system arises in the following case:
X creates a product with some new feature, but does NOT patent it.
Later on, Y invents the same feature independently and patents it.
After that, X tries to patent the same feature but their patent get rejected by the PTO because they see that Y already has a patent on that feature.
Under the current system, X can initiate something called an interference and try to prove that they invented the feature before Y. However, in the new system, X would be out of luck because Y patented it first.
Fraud is already illegal. If it was really fraud, they could use that law too. All these people are doing is video-taping a farm. If the activists destroyed property, exposed trade-secrets, or were causing a national security concern, then it's fine to criminalize it. But here, the conceptually no different than a farm worker who goes home and tells his wife and a few friends about the horrible things he saw. The only difference is that these activists can tell many more people.
But they are not being made less valuable because no one is aware of what is happening. Free markets require transparency. If people want to eat diseased meat, go right ahead, but they should be able to know that's what they're eating. All these groups are doing is bringing a meager amount of transparency to an opaque industry. If everyone could see what is happening at many large factory farms, the industry would change overnight.
Does stabbing them with pitch-forks and gouging out their eyes help the meat taste better? What about when they slaughter cows that are too sick to walk? Yummy! The crap documented on these farms isn't just slapping a few cows around. It would shock any meat-eater and these activists are doing excellent work.
This law would never have survived First Amendment scrutiny anyway. It not only prohibited taking the videos, but also prohibited displaying them on the news. But even if it was unconstitutional, it's great that it's dead now rather than later.
The reason why we don't have substantive patent reform is because of pharmaceutical companies. The big tech companies, with some exceptions, want weaker patent laws because they're under constant attack by trolls and competitors. Big-pharma on the other hand makes all of its money from patents and will fight tooth and nail against any weakening. As long as big-pharma is dependent on the patent system, I would not expect much change.
Okay, so now we have a far more reasonable knock + IT test. If it's in IT and you can knock on it, then you can patent it?
There are no easy lines. Everything is a shade a gray.
If you can knock on it, it's hardware, and can be patented. If you can't, it's software, and you can copyright it.
You really propose a "knock" test? Can you "knock" on a pharmaceutical drug or a manufacturing process? Guess those patents are out. It would be pretty hard to knock on anything smaller than a golf-ball, so I guess anything smaller than that are out too.
I met the lawyer/patent-troll that's running Bedrock. He's a really nice guy and freely admits he's in it for the money. Can't really blame him. It's our patent laws that need to be fixed.
A Terms of Service is really just a contract. A contract can cover anything from buying services, products, or virtually any agreement that you can imagine.
Really? No difference? One can run on nearly all types of DVD hardware, requires a physical store, and lets renters walk around and browse (at least the old model did). Streaming and DVD rentals are two different markets with different demographics. Even though the end product is the same, there's a huge difference with the whole experience.
Durie Tangri has Mark Lemley on board, probably the most renowned IP scholar currently practicing. He helped put together the google books settlement. This case will definitely be something to watch.
I'm not exactly sure why Drop-Box gets so much nerd-cred. It's a cool product, but there are way cooler ones out there. Check out SugarSync. They've got all the same features and a programmer's API so you can build your own stuff. They also have mobile integration for Andoid, iPhone, blackberry and non-smartphones. No I don't work for Sugarsync, but I am a happy customer.
Slashdot Mirror
One-corporation-one vote!
Yes, as I said, with respect to a GUI or OS, the term "windows" is somewhat suggestive and there is some evidence supporting its prior use in similar areas. But it was hardly "generic". I doubt (although I really don't know) the term was so widespread prior to Microsoft that everyone would commonly use the term "windows" to mean a GUI system. A few isolated uses in a handful of companies isn't enough to be generic.
But a patent does NOT give the right to "exclusive possession or control". Simply because you have a patent on something does not mean that you can actually use it. If Edison patents the light-bulb and then I come along and patent the florescent light-bulb, I can NOT make a florescent light-bulb without Edison's permission. A patent simply gives the right to exclude others, it does not give you the right to practice an invention yourself, exclusively or otherwise.
It's generally a good document answering basic questions on software patents, but the answer to the first question makes me cringe: "What is a patent? A patent is a state-granted monopoly ..."
A patent is not a monopoly. A monopoly, implies that a person have market power: that they can set the price of a product above what it would be in the free market. However, a patent does not grant such power. The vast majority of patents are for useless inventions and would not be able to demand any market power. But even useful patents don't necessarily confer monopolies. I doubt there is a single software patent that confers a "monopoly" on the patent holder. Any infringing software can be modified to work around just about any software patent. For example, if you have a patent on quicksort, I'll use merge-sort. If you have a patent on binary search, I'll write a ternary search algorithm. Patents do not confer monopoly power, they only confer the right to exclude others from infringing on the patent.
Just a bit of nit-picking in a generally good document.
The term "windows" with respect to a part of your house is definitely generic. The term "windows" with respect to an OS is not. Much like how the term "apple" is generic for fruit, but not for computers. The legal term for this type of use is "fanciful": a common word that is relatively meaningless in a given context. That said, "windows" is not totally meaningless with respect to a GUI, it has a suggestive meaning as well making it a bit less inherently distinctive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness#Arbitrary_marks
I generally agree. James Webb is great science, but at a huge cost that could most likely be spent more effectively elsewhere. Space telescopes are sexy and are attractive to congressmen that want to work on "bold projects." But often the best science comes in smaller increments. I'm all for increasing space and science funding, but in a world of limited resources, you still need to prioritize. Take a look at the article below for a critical view of the James Webb telescope: http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110605/NEWS01/110604013/Telescope-debacle-devours-NASA-funds
Patent trolls and the patent system are definitely a net loss on the tech industry. But the author ranks it as the #1 worst problem "plaug[ing]" tech?
Under both systems, old and new, if Y tries to enforce their patent, it will be invalidated by X's feature. Once, Y's patent is invalidated, anyone can use that feature including X. This is the situation you described and it would not matter which system was used.
The problems raised with new patent system arises in the following case:
Under the current system, X can initiate something called an interference and try to prove that they invented the feature before Y. However, in the new system, X would be out of luck because Y patented it first.
More likely, it will be written by Merck and Pfizer.
Fraud is already illegal. If it was really fraud, they could use that law too. All these people are doing is video-taping a farm. If the activists destroyed property, exposed trade-secrets, or were causing a national security concern, then it's fine to criminalize it. But here, the conceptually no different than a farm worker who goes home and tells his wife and a few friends about the horrible things he saw. The only difference is that these activists can tell many more people.
But they are not being made less valuable because no one is aware of what is happening. Free markets require transparency. If people want to eat diseased meat, go right ahead, but they should be able to know that's what they're eating. All these groups are doing is bringing a meager amount of transparency to an opaque industry. If everyone could see what is happening at many large factory farms, the industry would change overnight.
Does stabbing them with pitch-forks and gouging out their eyes help the meat taste better? What about when they slaughter cows that are too sick to walk? Yummy! The crap documented on these farms isn't just slapping a few cows around. It would shock any meat-eater and these activists are doing excellent work.
This law would never have survived First Amendment scrutiny anyway. It not only prohibited taking the videos, but also prohibited displaying them on the news. But even if it was unconstitutional, it's great that it's dead now rather than later.
Iowa already has defamation laws. So if it really were defamation, they could already sue the activists. They don't need any new laws.
The defense of laches, sometimes called equitable estoppel, does provide the type of relief you're talking about. I have no doubt that it will be raised in the lawsuit. You can read about it here: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/10/laches-and-equi.html?cid=136550545
The reason why we don't have substantive patent reform is because of pharmaceutical companies. The big tech companies, with some exceptions, want weaker patent laws because they're under constant attack by trolls and competitors. Big-pharma on the other hand makes all of its money from patents and will fight tooth and nail against any weakening. As long as big-pharma is dependent on the patent system, I would not expect much change.
Okay, so now we have a far more reasonable knock + IT test. If it's in IT and you can knock on it, then you can patent it? There are no easy lines. Everything is a shade a gray.
The summary is fairly poorly worded in general.
This whole post is flame bait, clearly submitted by someone who hasn't spent five minutes looking into the matter.
If you can knock on it, it's hardware, and can be patented. If you can't, it's software, and you can copyright it.
You really propose a "knock" test? Can you "knock" on a pharmaceutical drug or a manufacturing process? Guess those patents are out. It would be pretty hard to knock on anything smaller than a golf-ball, so I guess anything smaller than that are out too.
BTW... for a good article on Bedrock and some of the legal antics they've been able to pull off, check out: http://www.law.com/jsp/PubArticle.jsp?id=1202432513211
I met the lawyer/patent-troll that's running Bedrock. He's a really nice guy and freely admits he's in it for the money. Can't really blame him. It's our patent laws that need to be fixed.
A Terms of Service is really just a contract. A contract can cover anything from buying services, products, or virtually any agreement that you can imagine.
Really? No difference? One can run on nearly all types of DVD hardware, requires a physical store, and lets renters walk around and browse (at least the old model did). Streaming and DVD rentals are two different markets with different demographics. Even though the end product is the same, there's a huge difference with the whole experience.
Durie Tangri has Mark Lemley on board, probably the most renowned IP scholar currently practicing. He helped put together the google books settlement. This case will definitely be something to watch.
I'm not exactly sure why Drop-Box gets so much nerd-cred. It's a cool product, but there are way cooler ones out there. Check out SugarSync. They've got all the same features and a programmer's API so you can build your own stuff. They also have mobile integration for Andoid, iPhone, blackberry and non-smartphones. No I don't work for Sugarsync, but I am a happy customer.