As a lawyer, I find it disturbing (and amusing) how much is blamed on lawyers. Lawyers are hired guns. A lawyer does not and can not patent anything or sue anyone by him/herself. It is usually businesses and the people who run them that make those decisions. It is business people that decide what to lobby. Yes, lawyers counsel those clients and help them with strategy and often shape arguments.
Admittedly, lawyers always have the option to decline representation for something they find morally reprehensible, however, believe it or not, lawyers are also supposed to follow a code of ethics which often places a certain obligation to represent people.
Disclaimer: Of course it's not really this cut and dry, but we do ourselves a disservice by placing all the blame on laywers. In this case, killing the lawyers would just mean the underlying technology of the web would be patented by the inventors themselves (as required by their employment contract) or by patent agents (engineers/scientists that are admitted to the patent bar and are NOT lawyers).
The title of the patent is ALWAYS vague. The abstract almost as vague. And even the claims, which truly define the scope of the invention and are what is asserted as one's intellectual property, are vague when taken by themselves. It is usually not until you read the claims in light of the rest of the specification that you can really get a glimpse of what is being "invented." Unfortunately, even then, it is difficult to tell what subject matter is truly protected. You really need to look at the entire file history (all the communications between the PTO and the patent prosecutor) to understand what subject matter is covered by the patent. This is a problem that comes up time and time again when technologists/scientists read patents. Patents are written in legalese (come on! who says, "said one of said plural subscriber stations" instead of "one of the subscriber stations"?????) I am not defending every patent that is issued these days. I am simply pointing out that what is really protected by a patent may be the the tiniest of details in a patent, which may in fact be inventive, and not every word or idea expressed in the patent. Sadly, it takes someone who works with patents on a regular basis, if not a patent lawyer, to really be able to identify what is protected by a patent and whether a company should be worried. (semi-frivolous patents happen, and so do semi-frivoulous suits on patents(frivolous or not)).
This would remove that obstacle permitting non inventors to receive patents for things they didn't invent.
I have not read the entire proposed bill, but I highly doubt it would open the door to such fraud, unless they modified 35 USC 102(f), which requires the applicant to, in fact, be the inventor of the subject matter for which the patent is sought.
102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
. . .
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented . . .
Really this is just a question of whether it is an issue of law or an issue of fact. Issues of law are determined by a judge, whereas issues of fact require a jury.
Judges already play a very important role in the determination of patent litigation. One of the most important parts of any patent litigation is the Markman hearing in which the judge decides the meaning of each term within the claims of the patent, not the scope of the claims, but the scope of the elements within the claims. Frequently, once a Markman hearing concludes, the parties settle since there is nothing really left at issue, since the while not technically the same, the scope of the elements freqeuntly determines the scope of the claims.
Cornice will only have to "eventually pay licensing fees to Seagate" if Seagate successfully sues for patent infringement. The fact that Seagate is asking to exclude Cornice does not necessarily mean that exclusion is actually Seagate's desired final outcome. It could simply be a litigation strategy. It is used all the time. If Seagate wins the infringement action, and Cornice is faced with the possibility of losing ALL revenue from the infringing product line, that is a HUGE incentive to Cornice to settle with Seagate and negotiate a license. Of course the licensing fee in that situation will likely be far greater than the fee if Cornice and Seagate were to negotiate now, since without a court ruling that Cornice is ingringing, Cornice has no incentive to give in to Seagate's possibly sky-high demands.
Futhermore, the statutory penalty for patent infringement is damages, or at least a reasonable licensing fee. You might be surprised how often the reasonable licensing fee is actually more money than damages, since the damages calculation is complicated and difficult to prove.
The point is that many companies use infringement suits a bargaining chip to extract higher licensing fees.
Most people are probably aware of this (including the parent), but "patented != better". It doesn't even mean good. In the US, all it really means is that it is new, useful, and novel. Utility requires that it does what the patent claims it does. Thus, RealNetworks may patent "a means of consuming computer storage capability, CPU resources, and confusing the user . . . " etc... as long as its new, novel, and does what it claims (which it certainly would). [IANA Patent Agent].
Interestingly, and OT, all these herbal supplements that boast patented are certainly patented, but that may only be a patent on the compound or mixture, which may or may not claim to posses the advertised capabilities. A course I took once said, that the test for utility of many chemicals was to take it outside and poor it on the ground, if grass grew better, it was a useful growth agent, if grass dies, it was a useful weed killer. So remember, the next herbal supplement you take may be patented.... for killing plants.
Re:Running? (not a troll)
on
Running for Geeks
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The urge "to go #2" is not uncommon. It is known as runner's trots. You can find plenty of discussions on this topic on various runners message boards. Most articles say essentially the same thing re: remedies. here is one
I completely agree with your "good things" list about the new name. As to the problem list, have you been to the USPTO web site lately (apologies for my ameri-centrism). The number of registered marks out there is insane (and that's just the registered ones). Trying to find a name that has no parallel in a different market is a frighteningly difficult task. I'd say its harder than trying to find a cool ".com" domain name that isn't taken.
When it comes to issues involving Big Business, I don't trust the Republicans OR the Democrats. I think Gore Vidal said it best, "America, with its one political party, and its two right wings."
One incorruptible leader who is not influenced by evil outside forces such as the views of people (who have many stupid ideas) or business or elections.
Right.... our 535 democratically elected leaders are completely incorruptible. There is no money in washington. big business certainly doesn't have undue influence. Soft money is constitutional (which it probaly is).
My point, is that Congress deciding the issue does NOT provide me with much comfort. Generally I am more inclined to trust the bench. However for some reason they only recently have begun to understand the technological social issues before them.
no doubt Sony could have designed the VCR to disable the ability of users to record shows from the air. But whether Sony should have been so required was a decision for Congress
I admire Lessig immensely, and maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems that he is implying it is a GOOD thing to let Congress decide what uses of p2p should exist. Maybe that is actually better than outright judicial control (it is theoretically easier to change congressional legislation than stare decisis), but I have NO FAITH in Congress to consider the people over the millions of $$$ being thrown at them by the media industry.
I believe that the recent decision is a step in the right direction, but I can't help but wonder if this is taking p2p out of the frying pan and into the fire.
And its all perfectly legal, since I am archiving for later viewing. On the other hand, getting the same from a TiVo requires modifications of questionable legality.
Ummmm, IANAL, but if extracting the video from TiVo is of questionable legality, I am fairly certain that using your own PC in the exact same way is also of questionable legality. TiVo just makes it more difficult to extract the video in order to protect themselves. If they lose the coming legal battle, I assure you, the media conglomorates will not stop there, but continue on to all digital video capture devices.
Assuming the argument is over explosions in the vacuum of space (which wasn't clear to me from the original post), then it is absolutely correct that no sound would be perceived until the "stuff" reached the observer. Of course it seems in that case you still woulnd't hear it unless it came crashing into your ship where there actually was an atmosphere to carry the sound vibrations. I didn't realize the "stuff" crashes into the viewer's spacecraft. This whole argument seems to be an over-analysis. I am sure that usually movie directors and special effects wizards use what laws of physics create the greatest audience impact and response.
...ACCURACY into it. It's silent, UNTIL the explosion (and the vibrating "stuff" it's bringing with it) gets to the camera.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but shouldn't sound travel faster than "stuff"? Unless the explosion causes the shrapnel to travel at the speed of sound, I would think you would hear the explosion BEFORE the "stuff" reaches the camera. Kinda like how you hear a train coming before you can even see it, muchtheless before it reaches you. Maybe I'm just being pedantic.
All it does is sit at the bottom of the main menu for a couple of days. It doesn't even get in your way if you're trying to record something else.
As a TiVo owner I have to agree that while this seems like spam or Tivo taking control of your box without your permission, is it really that different than if they were to download the entire show or video clip to the TiVo during the daily call in RealAudio format? They just happen to be using the data sent over the television to deliver content WITHOUT interfering with your normal use of the device.
TiVo is beginning to distribute the guide data by embedding it in TV signal (Discovery Channel or TLC I think). If your TiVo switches to that channel in the middle of the night to "record" the data while you're asleep are you going to be upset about that as well?
This will turn the "skip to end" (->|) button into 30 second skip. However, this means you will lose the current functionality of that button, including skip to tickmark while in RW/FF.
The loss of the skip to tick functionality is allegedly fixed in 3.0 which is currently slowly being rolled out. I can't veryify, since I haven't been upgraded yet. Supposedly, while playing the (->|) will skip 30 seconds and while FFW, (->|) will skip to next tick.
Actually, I saw Mission to Mars at a regular old theater and felt the same distraction, but it was Gary's eyeliner that killed me. I felt like I was at the Rocky Horror Picture show.
I still remember this very clearly. "Why in heavens name would you ever need that much space in a hard drive"
Which leads me to my theory:
When you think the processor is faster than anyone will ever need, when you think that you RAM is more than enough to do anything you will ever want to do, or when you think the current state of storage capacity is larger than anyone will ever need.... get out of the field. You no longer get what it is all about. You have lost the vision.
IANAL BMSOISTBO (but my SO is studying to be one). Out of curiousity I recently studied a bit of her study materials, particularly the area of negligence in torts. I was specifically looking for information on whether or not a software engineer can be held professionally negligent (it seems they can't). Lawyers however CAN.
I never got the patent law information but from my little inquiry, my limited understanding leads me to believe that this is a perfect case for negligence per se, which is when you don't actually have to prove negligence, it is just understood that the act is so blatantly negligent that you don't have to argue why the reasonable professional would not have performed said act (like amputating the wrong leg). However as somone else posted, it is possible the rules and restrictions of patent law protect the patent examiner in this case, and I am not sure who would be the appropriate party to bring a suit against this guy, but I would love to see someone try.
Slashdot Mirror
Admittedly, lawyers always have the option to decline representation for something they find morally reprehensible, however, believe it or not, lawyers are also supposed to follow a code of ethics which often places a certain obligation to represent people.
Disclaimer: Of course it's not really this cut and dry, but we do ourselves a disservice by placing all the blame on laywers. In this case, killing the lawyers would just mean the underlying technology of the web would be patented by the inventors themselves (as required by their employment contract) or by patent agents (engineers/scientists that are admitted to the patent bar and are NOT lawyers).
The title of the patent is ALWAYS vague. The abstract almost as vague. And even the claims, which truly define the scope of the invention and are what is asserted as one's intellectual property, are vague when taken by themselves. It is usually not until you read the claims in light of the rest of the specification that you can really get a glimpse of what is being "invented." Unfortunately, even then, it is difficult to tell what subject matter is truly protected. You really need to look at the entire file history (all the communications between the PTO and the patent prosecutor) to understand what subject matter is covered by the patent. This is a problem that comes up time and time again when technologists/scientists read patents. Patents are written in legalese (come on! who says, "said one of said plural subscriber stations" instead of "one of the subscriber stations"?????) I am not defending every patent that is issued these days. I am simply pointing out that what is really protected by a patent may be the the tiniest of details in a patent, which may in fact be inventive, and not every word or idea expressed in the patent. Sadly, it takes someone who works with patents on a regular basis, if not a patent lawyer, to really be able to identify what is protected by a patent and whether a company should be worried. (semi-frivolous patents happen, and so do semi-frivoulous suits on patents(frivolous or not)).
I have not read the entire proposed bill, but I highly doubt it would open the door to such fraud, unless they modified 35 USC 102(f), which requires the applicant to, in fact, be the inventor of the subject matter for which the patent is sought.
Don't worry, the can't get recovery ad infinitum. IIRC, the doctrine of laches only allows recovery of damages for the last 6 years.
Really this is just a question of whether it is an issue of law or an issue of fact. Issues of law are determined by a judge, whereas issues of fact require a jury.
Judges already play a very important role in the determination of patent litigation. One of the most important parts of any patent litigation is the Markman hearing in which the judge decides the meaning of each term within the claims of the patent, not the scope of the claims, but the scope of the elements within the claims. Frequently, once a Markman hearing concludes, the parties settle since there is nothing really left at issue, since the while not technically the same, the scope of the elements freqeuntly determines the scope of the claims.
Futhermore, the statutory penalty for patent infringement is damages, or at least a reasonable licensing fee. You might be surprised how often the reasonable licensing fee is actually more money than damages, since the damages calculation is complicated and difficult to prove.
The point is that many companies use infringement suits a bargaining chip to extract higher licensing fees.
Interestingly, and OT, all these herbal supplements that boast patented are certainly patented, but that may only be a patent on the compound or mixture, which may or may not claim to posses the advertised capabilities. A course I took once said, that the test for utility of many chemicals was to take it outside and poor it on the ground, if grass grew better, it was a useful growth agent, if grass dies, it was a useful weed killer. So remember, the next herbal supplement you take may be patented.... for killing plants.
The urge "to go #2" is not uncommon. It is known as runner's trots. You can find plenty of discussions on this topic on various runners message boards. Most articles say essentially the same thing re: remedies. here is one
I completely agree with your "good things" list about the new name. As to the problem list, have you been to the USPTO web site lately (apologies for my ameri-centrism). The number of registered marks out there is insane (and that's just the registered ones). Trying to find a name that has no parallel in a different market is a frighteningly difficult task. I'd say its harder than trying to find a cool ".com" domain name that isn't taken.
When it comes to issues involving Big Business, I don't trust the Republicans OR the Democrats. I think Gore Vidal said it best, "America, with its one political party, and its two right wings."
My point, is that Congress deciding the issue does NOT provide me with much comfort. Generally I am more inclined to trust the bench. However for some reason they only recently have begun to understand the technological social issues before them.
I admire Lessig immensely, and maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems that he is implying it is a GOOD thing to let Congress decide what uses of p2p should exist. Maybe that is actually better than outright judicial control (it is theoretically easier to change congressional legislation than stare decisis), but I have NO FAITH in Congress to consider the people over the millions of $$$ being thrown at them by the media industry.
I believe that the recent decision is a step in the right direction, but I can't help but wonder if this is taking p2p out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Right click on the calendar in Outlook. Select "Open in New Window". Annoyance abated.
Assuming the argument is over explosions in the vacuum of space (which wasn't clear to me from the original post), then it is absolutely correct that no sound would be perceived until the "stuff" reached the observer. Of course it seems in that case you still woulnd't hear it unless it came crashing into your ship where there actually was an atmosphere to carry the sound vibrations. I didn't realize the "stuff" crashes into the viewer's spacecraft. This whole argument seems to be an over-analysis. I am sure that usually movie directors and special effects wizards use what laws of physics create the greatest audience impact and response.
TiVo is beginning to distribute the guide data by embedding it in TV signal (Discovery Channel or TLC I think). If your TiVo switches to that channel in the middle of the night to "record" the data while you're asleep are you going to be upset about that as well?
Actually, I saw Mission to Mars at a regular old theater and felt the same distraction, but it was Gary's eyeliner that killed me. I felt like I was at the Rocky Horror Picture show.
I never got the patent law information but from my little inquiry, my limited understanding leads me to believe that this is a perfect case for negligence per se, which is when you don't actually have to prove negligence, it is just understood that the act is so blatantly negligent that you don't have to argue why the reasonable professional would not have performed said act (like amputating the wrong leg). However as somone else posted, it is possible the rules and restrictions of patent law protect the patent examiner in this case, and I am not sure who would be the appropriate party to bring a suit against this guy, but I would love to see someone try.