Also, people should keep in mind that damages under the law are retroactive to the date of the patent issuance. The fact that it's about to expire won't help anyone who's been using it prior to expiration. The patent holder can spend the next 20 years suing all the people that infringed prior to expiration, if they'd like.
From the article: "Our current assumption is that the patent is not valid," said Clark. However Clark says that since the patent becomes invalid in 2004 (under the old rules, seventeen years after filing, rather than twenty years after a grant) there is little incentive for manufacturers to bow to Forgent's terms.
NOT!
The old rules were 17 years from the grant. The new rules are 20 years from filing. Why is the press so brain-dead when it comes to understanding the most simple aspects of patent law? You can't effectively fight something that you don't understand.
They could get additional claims covering any patentable material in the "body" (specification) section of the patent, through a "continuation" application, but the 17-years-from-issuance expiration term applies -- counting from the issuance of the initial patent.
> I say, if you have a patent on something, you have a limited amount of time to claim infringement after the infringement is discovered.
That is the case already. If you know of an infringer, you typically have 6 years to take action, or that infringer gets an implied license. It's called "the doctrine of laches." Of course it's infringer-specific, and doesn't help other infringers that the patent holder didn't specifically know about.
Check out Project MATHEMATICS! [href="http://www.projectmathematics.com/], which was started by ex-JPL computer graphics god, Jim Blinn (he was once called "the 10 best programmers in the world").
He won a MacAurthur genius award, back around 91, for this series of educational math videos, after which he immediately bought a Ferrari and got a girlfriend.
--DM
If I'm assuming correctly that SF doesn't archive illegal MP3 files, and only provides players to people, then access to SF is most likely being blocked for fraudulent reasons. There is nothing illegal about providing MP3 players for people to play their own legally-owned MP3 files on. By blocking access to SF on this basis, these guys have opened themselves up to a massive restraint-of-trade lawsuit from the multitude of people who depend upon the existence of ubiquitous access to SF for various aspects of their livelihood.
--DM
Slashdot Mirror
Also, people should keep in mind that damages under the law are retroactive to the date of the patent issuance. The fact that it's about to expire won't help anyone who's been using it prior to expiration. The patent holder can spend the next 20 years suing all the people that infringed prior to expiration, if they'd like.
NOT!
The old rules were 17 years from the grant. The new rules are 20 years from filing. Why is the press so brain-dead when it comes to understanding the most simple aspects of patent law? You can't effectively fight something that you don't understand.
They could get additional claims covering any patentable material in the "body" (specification) section of the patent, through a "continuation" application, but the 17-years-from-issuance expiration term applies -- counting from the issuance of the initial patent.
Laches only applies to specific infringers. If you started infringing 5 years ago, you're out of luck. They can still sue you.
No. It expires in 2004, 17 years after the issue date. The 20 year rule only applies to patents filed after late 1995.
That is the case already. If you know of an infringer, you typically have 6 years to take action, or that infringer gets an implied license. It's called "the doctrine of laches." Of course it's infringer-specific, and doesn't help other infringers that the patent holder didn't specifically know about.
Check out Project MATHEMATICS! [href="http://www.projectmathematics.com/], which was started by ex-JPL computer graphics god, Jim Blinn (he was once called "the 10 best programmers in the world"). He won a MacAurthur genius award, back around 91, for this series of educational math videos, after which he immediately bought a Ferrari and got a girlfriend. --DM
If I'm assuming correctly that SF doesn't archive illegal MP3 files, and only provides players to people, then access to SF is most likely being blocked for fraudulent reasons. There is nothing illegal about providing MP3 players for people to play their own legally-owned MP3 files on. By blocking access to SF on this basis, these guys have opened themselves up to a massive restraint-of-trade lawsuit from the multitude of people who depend upon the existence of ubiquitous access to SF for various aspects of their livelihood. --DM