Dead on accurate. It's called acoustic timing. I suggest you listen to a Binaurial recording with headphones on to experience this.
Headphones with how many drivers? Exactly - binaural recordings work great with just two, and don't need the 8 mentioned in the earlier post. In fact, binaural recordings work best with two ear buds so that the shape of the ear doesn't adversely affect the recording.
You're right that timing is how we localize sounds (plus amplitude - the interaural amplitude difference or IAD is used for lower frequency sounds with wavelengths approaching or greater than the size of the head, while the interaural time difference or ITD is used for high frequency sounds). But that doesn't require 4 drivers in a single headphone cup to reproduce.
One-click is actually a great counterexample of your point - despite private bounties being placed on prior art, an EFF campaign seeking prior art, and four years of reexamination that confirmed patentability, people still bring it up as if it were a "mockery of the entire patent system".
The fact that the "one-click" patent may actually be a legally valid patent is exactly what makes it a "mockery of the entire patent system". A reasonable patent system (were such a thing not a logical impossibility) would exclude such patents. If ours does not, that just reaffirms how unreasonable the system is.
On what grounds would a "reasonable patent system" exclude it? It hasn't been shown to be anticipated or obvious in view of prior art, in spite of all of the efforts that have been thrown at it, so those wouldn't be reasonable grounds. Because it's related to computers? Because it's related to business? Is it reasonable to exclude an entire industry from patentability, even if their inventions are new and nonobvious? And if so, where do you define the boundaries of that industry: if you say business methods are out, then what about machines that help in business? If stuff related to retail is excluded, then what about stuff related to wholesale?
A "reasonable patent system" can't be an arbitrary one, so you must have clear and concrete grounds for why such inventions should be excluded from patentability.
Bezos is synonymous with bad patents in my mind... all because of his one-click patent which makes a mockery of the entire patent system and undermines any validity his other patents might have.
One-click is actually a great counterexample of your point - despite private bounties being placed on prior art, an EFF campaign seeking prior art, and four years of reexamination that confirmed patentability, people still bring it up as if it were a "mockery of the entire patent system". Clearly,that's not because the patent is invalid or obvious, since despite all of those efforts, no one has ever been able to show that - rather, it's because of the millions of dollars that have been spending in a propaganda campaign to convince software developers not to patent their inventions. Accordingly, discussions of the one-click patent can be a great indicator of people who have been misled by that propaganda - frequently, without ever actually having read the claims of the patent at all (after all, it's not, by any means, a patent on "clicking once").
IANAL, but the quick Google based research I did I could find nothing to suggest there is much in the way of codified law out there that makes special consideration for SEPs vs other patents. It all comes down to FRAND licensing which is contractual agreement between members of the standards organization / patent pool. The Administration is not a party.
If a court adjudicates the dispute between Apple and Samsung and determines in Samsungs favor the Administration does not seem to be doing anything other than "making it up as they go along" by stepping in here. I'd love to see some documentation to the contrary if anyone can point something out, but it sure looks like just another case Obama abusively broad interpretation of presidential power.
There's a ton of precedent in antitrust law having to do with SEPs vs. other patents. But yes, at their heart, they're contractual agreements and the administration is not a party. So? If Microsoft has a contract with OEMs that force them to include IE pre-installed and no other browsers, the DoJ can still step in, even though they're not a party. This is a similar anti-trust issue.
And this isn't a court dispute per se, either - it's at the International Trade Commission, which is an executive branch body. The ITC can't award monetary damages, you'll note - the most they can do is ban imports of devices. That's because they're essentially part of the customs branch. So, again, not a "broad interpretation of presidential power".
"The Policy Statement expresses substantial concerns, which I strongly share, about the potential harms that can result from owners of standards-essential patents ("SEPs") who have made a voluntary commitment to offer to license SEPs on terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND"), gaining undue leverage and engaging in "patent hold-up", i.e., asserting the patent to exclude an implementer of the standard from a market to obtain a higher price for use of the patent than would have been possible before the standard was set, when alternative technologies could have been chosen."
Except that's not what happened. Samsung was more than willing to licence the patents on terms that the court agreed were fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. Apple wanted discriminatory pricing and Obama basically said it wasn't fair because paying the same percentage as everyone else would eat into Apple's profits too much.
Incidentally, from the dissent in the ITC Opinion:
... In the present investigation, however, although Apple failed in the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge to meet the burden of proof in establishing an affirmative defense based on FRAND, the weight of the evidence before the Commission in this remedial phase indicates that Samsung has thus far been unable or unwilling to make a FRAND licensing offer to Apple in relation to the '348 patent. The absence of a FRAND licensing offer from the course of dealings between the parties clearly has a bearing on whether relief under Section 337 is in the public interest.
I note in this regard that Samsung has made no effort to demonstrate that the license terms it has offered Apple specifically with respect to the '348 patent, or specifically with respect to a portfolio of declared-essential patents that includes it, satisfy an objective standard of reasonableness...
I think that pretty conclusively disproves your assertion.
"The Policy Statement expresses substantial concerns, which I strongly share, about the potential harms that can result from owners of standards-essential patents ("SEPs") who have made a voluntary commitment to offer to license SEPs on terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND"), gaining undue leverage and engaging in "patent hold-up", i.e., asserting the patent to exclude an implementer of the standard from a market to obtain a higher price for use of the patent than would have been possible before the standard was set, when alternative technologies could have been chosen."
Except that's not what happened. Samsung was more than willing to licence the patents on terms that the court agreed were fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. Apple wanted discriminatory pricing and Obama basically said it wasn't fair because paying the same percentage as everyone else would eat into Apple's profits too much.
[Citation needed]. I quoted from the Obama statement above, and it says the exact opposite from what you claim it says. If you have a direct and contradictory quote to support your assertion, please provide it.
It's a dangerous game to play because the result could be South Korea being granted the right to ignore certain US patents.
No, it wouldn't. Apple doesn't have the right to ignore Samsung's patents - they're still on the hook for monetary damages. The only point is that Samsung can't use the harsh stick of a total injunction, but have to settle for receiving a big fat check. And that's because Samsung voluntarily agreed "we won't use the harsh stick of a total injunction, but will settle for receiving big fat checks" when they entered into the FRAND agreements. Accordingly, there's no way that WIPO would look at this and say "because the US enforced a FRAND agreement and would only award money for patent infringement here, therefore Korea can steal US inventions willy-nilly."
Let me put it this way: We both make widgets. I have all the technology to make the widget function properly and you do not. You say my widget looks too much like your widget, and its copying your desing, so you sue me and take a bunch of money out of my pocket. THEN you say you need to license my technology to make your widgets. Is it that unreasonable to assume I'd charge you a higher rate to license my product? Is that really being a jerk?
It's acting like someone with hurt feelings, which really has no place in an economic deal between two corporations.
More importantly, you make widget-function technology and have approached every widget manufacturer and said, "Friends, colleagues, competitors, lend me your ears! Having a dozen different function technologies impairs interoperability, and pisses off consumers. If you all agree to standardize on my widget technology, I will charge everyone a fair and reasonable royalty. Then we can all use the same technology, consumers will be happy, we'll all make more money, and everything is wonderful!" ... and then a few years later, you say: "Hey, you, iWidgets Corp.! You sued me when I copied your designs, so I'm going to double your royalties for my widget standard."
User interfaces are also "actual technology", Linux die-hards gripes notwithstanding.
Perhaps, but a different kind of technology. FRAND patents covering radio communications require billions of dollars in research and development to push the envelope of how much data can be transmitted, how to transition from one tower to another in the middle of a phone call with no interruption, etc. I seriously doubt Apple's "R&D" on bounceback scrolling and slide to unlock is anywhere near the amount of money Samsung sunk into the technology of their FRAND patents.
Agreed, and that's why if it were me, I'd say that the Apple ones merit a smaller royalty than the Samsung ones. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
If not, then the fact that interface patents are given higher priority in ITC bans as well as higher awards in courts is just plain fucked up.
They're not given a higher priority because they're interface patents (and they're not actually given a higher priority at all - both cases took the same amount of time). The ITC bans aren't available for standards patents because they're on standards. The fact that other stuff is not on a standard and bans are available doesn't mean that we're elevating user interfaces over radio technology, it's simply saying you don't get to voluntarily agree to put your patents into a pool for a standard, and then suddenly go for injunctions against everyone using the standard.
Samsung didn't put its patents under FRAND because of the goodness of their hearts - it's because they get guaranteed royalties at a Fair and Reasonable rate from every participant with the standard. That's a nice income stream, provided they don't start being jerks about it and demanding unreasonable rates from people they don't like.
According to bullshit decisions like Obama's, apparently it's not as nice of an income stream as keeping the patents and technologies proprietary and leaving Apple to come up with their own technologies for transmitting phone calls.
If you keep the patents and technologies proprietary, then it's not in the standard, and everyone else adopts a different standard and someone else, like Nokia for example, gets the income stream. What's bullshiat about that?
Samsung and the other victims of Apple lawsuits have to be considering this. After all of the lawsuits and attempts to ban their products, FRAND is starting to seem like much more of a liability than an asset.
Sure, if you're a litigator rather than a businessman. I mean, the former can hope for these rare billion dollar decisions after years of expensive fights, while the latter has to be happy with a constant stream of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in perpetuity.
Fundamentally, I think you're misreading the article and misunderstanding the whole ban. That Obama vetoed the Samsung ITC ban doesn't mean that Apple gets to infringe scot-free. Samsung can still collect monetary damages. All it means is that Apple can still import their products - and, coincidentally, keep infringing the standard patent and keep increasing the amount of monetary damages they'll owe Samsung.
What is their patent on a "headphone jack sensor"? Is this anything like the sensor that portable radios have had for decades that let them switch off the speaker when the headphones are plugged in?
Nope. This is actually a sensor to determine, when headphones are plugged in, whether they're just stereo headphones, headphones+mic, or headphones+mic+control interface.
Whether there's anticipatory prior art for that is a different question, but the dumb normally-closed TRS jacks that have been used in patch bays for decades are not the same thing and all, and can make no determinations about the device plugged in, just whether a device is plugged in.
Thanks, when I tried to look it up, all I could find was references to this current decision with nothing about the actual patents that Apple claims were violated.
FOSSPatents has an article with links to the Apple patents... but you know how Florian is received here at Slashdot.;)
Nope. This is actually a sensor to determine, when headphones are plugged in, whether they're just stereo headphones, headphones+mic, or headphones+mic+control interface.
That is so totally freaking innovative. I would never, ever have thought of building in a sensor to detect what type of headphones were plugged in.
Man, these guys are smart.
Again, from my post, because you apparently missed it:
Whether there's anticipatory prior art for that is a different question, but the dumb normally-closed TRS jacks that have been used in patch bays for decades are not the same thing at all, and can make no determinations about the device plugged in, just whether a device is plugged in.
I never claimed it was "totally freaking innovative". I merely pointed out that it's not the same as a normalling plug. Is that too complicated for you?
What is their patent on a "headphone jack sensor"? Is this anything like the sensor that portable radios have had for decades that let them switch off the speaker when the headphones are plugged in?
Nope. This is actually a sensor to determine, when headphones are plugged in, whether they're just stereo headphones, headphones+mic, or headphones+mic+control interface.
Whether there's anticipatory prior art for that is a different question, but the dumb normally-closed TRS jacks that have been used in patch bays for decades are not the same thing and all, and can make no determinations about the device plugged in, just whether a device is plugged in.
He bailed out Apple in order to "preserve the market" or some such claptrap. How is treating Samsung differently remotely consistent here?
Because one is a patent on a non-standard user interface, and the other is a patent on a standard radio technology. Because the owner of former did not agree to let others use the technology, while the owner of the latter voluntarily said "yes, everyone can use this technology and I will not exert undue pressure or attempt to get injunctions against you, and will instead accept a reasonable monetary royalty."
The subtleties of the two bans don't really matter since that wasn't the stated reason for giving Apple a free ride last time around.
"The Policy Statement expresses substantial concerns, which I strongly share, about the potential harms that can result from owners of standards-essential patents ("SEPs") who have made a voluntary commitment to offer to license SEPs on terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND"), gaining undue leverage and engaging in "patent hold-up", i.e., asserting the patent to exclude an implementer of the standard from a market to obtain a higher price for use of the patent than would have been possible before the standard was set, when alternative technologies could have been chosen."
Flaming hypocrisy.
Of course getting near the presidency will ensure that your candidate is just like any other corrupt white guy regardless of whether your candidate is black or a woman. No one should ever had any delusions in that regard.
Samsung's patents are FRAND because they are over actual technology, you know, stuff like radios, modulation techniques, and other things actually developed in a lab.
Apples patents are for things like bouncy scrolling, and slide to unlock.
User interfaces are also "actual technology", Linux die-hards gripes notwithstanding.
No more FRAND patents. No company making actual technology has any economic interest in putting its patents under FRAND terms. Decades of cooperation on technology standards come to an end.
Samsung didn't put its patents under FRAND because of the goodness of their hearts - it's because they get guaranteed royalties at a Fair and Reasonable rate from every participant with the standard. That's a nice income stream, provided they don't start being jerks about it and demanding unreasonable rates from people they don't like.
But even more importantly, your fundamental point is wrong:
If the holder of FRAND patents cannot negotiate with an infringer for a fair price, and the infringer can also sue over its own patents and demand outrageous royalties per device, then the end result is clear.
These pair of decisions do not mean that FRAND patent owners "cannot negotiate with an infringer for a fair price". It's just that they can't hold the infringer's products hostage by preventing import. Basically:
If you have a non-standard patent, you can get an injunction against import, because the infringer has the option to design around the patent.
If you have a standard patent, you have already agreed that you will not get injunctions as part of promoting the standard, and can only get monetary damages.
His advice ignores the benefits of leniency if you're guilty and you're almost positive you'll be caught anyway. For most of this discussion I've been focusing on the merits of talking to the police if you're innocent. But Officer Bruch also says that if people in the interrogation room answer questions and cooperate, then even if they're ultimately convicted, the police do testify to the judge that you were cooperative, and the judge can take that into account and reduce your prison sentence. That is at least theoretically another legitimate reason to violate Professor Duane's "Don't Talk To Cops" rule, if you're 99% sure that the police will find enough evidence to convict you anyway, you can hope for leniency by cooperating.
Would it not be more beneficial for your attorney to arrange some plea deal? As somebody who is not an expert on criminal law, I would keep my mouth shut until I talked to my attorney. I'd let the expert on criminal justice decide if it was worth confessing instead of hoping for the best.
More importantly, his argument relies on the presumption that "the police [will] testify to the judge that you were cooperative." That presumption may hold true in the movies or on television, but in reality, the police never do anything of the sort.
Summary: "... the US Patent and Trademark Office is running as normal because its funding is guaranteed by the US Constitution."
Article:
The USPTO, for example, is established in the US Constitution, and has its own funding that doesn’t depend on annual Congressional appropriations to the extent that some others do.
See, Subby, it's not that the funding is guaranteed by the Constitution, but that the funding comes from its own fees rather than Congressional allotment. Consider, the very same clause in the Constitution that establishes the Patent Office also establishes the Copyright Office... And yet, the Copyright Office is closed. The difference is that it only costs $35 to register a copyright, and costs upwards of $3000 in fees to get a patent.
'Revenge porn' is nearly always copyright violation. Clearly the 'model' has not signed off on this usage, and in the case of 'sexting' in particular, the 'model' is usually the 'photographer' too and therefore has ALL publication and distribution rights to the image, not just the model rights.
Anyone publishing revenge porn or hosting revenge porn sites is operating on the same level of self delusion as kazaa had when it asserted it 'presumes its users had the rights to the files being shared' while at the same time advertising you could get all the top hits for free.
Same thing here, they disclaim that the photo submitters have the rights to submit these photos while at the same time promoting the ability to get revenge on your ex by publishing the pictures she sexted you... literally inducing copyright infringment by definition.
If anything these website operators deserve to be shut down more than Kazaa did because these guys are are actually hosting/distributing the content.
I've made the same point (and I'm an IP attorney, so yes, you're right regarding the copyright ownership), but there's a counterpoint: these photos are not intended for distribution or sale, and so the actual damages for illegally distributing them is going to be (a) negligible, and (b) nigh-impossible to prove.
"But wait," you say. "What about statutory damages of up to $150,000 for willful infringement? Surely, that's a better fit here (and a more apt punishment) than the Jammie Thomas or Joel Tenenbaum RIAA cases!"
And you're absolutely right... except that to get statutory damages, you have to register your copyright. By sending a copy to the Library of Congress. Where it is publicly archived and available. Your intimate sex picture. That you're suing over because you don't want it publicly available.
Dang.
Nonetheless, once it's published on a revenge-porn site, the damage has already been done, so someone wise could quickly register their copyright (you have 3 months from first publication) and then (a) file a DMCA takedown to get it removed, with huge penalties if they don't, and (b) file suit for statutory damages for willful infringement against the ex who stole it.
Actually, it isn't. Filing a patent infringement lawsuit on a patent you don't own is very much not legal, which is why they tried so hard to hide that fact. So no, they likely won't get money. And the lawyer representing NPS will be lucky if he isn't disbarred.
If you read the judge's order, the ownership issue isn't so cut and dried, which is why he denied Fortinet's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Specifically, MPH signed a contract assigning the patent to NPS on day X. NPS filed suit on day Y. NPS signed the contract on day Z. Under Texas contract law, the contract need not be signed by NPS if there's mutual assent of the parties. This is actually a common provision - in many states, contracts only need to be signed by the person the contract is going to be enforced against. So, for example, if MPH wasn't going to enforce the contract against NPS ("take my property or I'll sue you to force you to take my property"?), then it didn't need a signature. Anyways, in Texas, that mutual assent can be shown by conduct of the parties, including NPS filing suit on day Y.
In other words, if the jury looks at the contract and determines that both MPH and NPS believed that, as of day Y, NPS owned the patent, then NPS did own the patent on that day, and there's no lack of standing.
And as long as that argument exists (and frankly, it's not a bad argument, because who can reasonably believe that an internal transfer from a company to a shell company didn't have assent of both companies?), then the lawyer can't possibly be disbarred for it.
So, care to comment on the threat to file bogus criminal charges unless they settled?
With just one side of the story, there's not enough information to know what they're talking about. Plus, it seems to be a bit confused. From the Doubleclick guy's blog post, he called up the inventor and asked her a bunch of questions and she repeatedly refused to comment:
I reached out to Shapiro directly to ask her a few questions about her interest in the patent and let’s just say she was not thrilled. I asked Ms. Shapiro if she held any economic interest in the patent and she repeatedly recited the same thing, “I was a co-inventor of the patent but no longer own the patent.” In other words, she refused to answer the question and claimed not to know the lawyer I was referring to.
He then got a call from the plaintiff's attorney:
Later that day, we received another phone call from Wasserbauer. Wasserbauer claimed that we had committed a “hate crime” against Shapiro and were in violation of the discovery process, which was false. He then told us we had until the end of the day to settle the case or face criminal charges for harassment. We immediately notified the FBI of his extortion attempt.
... so he says that the plaintiff's attorney told him that he committed a "hate crime", but then the attorney says he'll press charges for harassment. That's a bit different than a hate crime, and from the guy's blog post, it does sound like he was harassing the inventor with those repeated questions. Worthy of a criminal complaint? Unlikely... but ascertainably "bogus"? Not without more information. Like a recording of the call would be great, or at least a statement from the inventor with her side of the story.
Certainly, I wouldn't publicly accuse an alleged victim of lying about harassment based only on a statement from the accused person, and without ever hearing what the alleged victim said, seeing a transcript, hearing a record, etc., and knowing that the accused person was the one who initiated the communication. That seems to be outrageously stupid. Your opinion may vary, of course.
Third, in a world where someone actually got a patent on the wheel, for swinging side to side on a swingset, and for teasing a cat with a laser pointer you are appealing to the authority of a patent examiner.
Oh, and additionally, your deflection aside, my underlying point remains the same: you say, without any evidence, that the patent covers every version of matching two things together throughout history. You haven't even quoted the patent claims. Are we seriously to believe your extraordinary claim, when you then have to point to Australian registration systems to support it, rather than merely quoting the patent in question?
The first thing throwing people is you're talking about a copyright case in relation to patents.
I thought we were talking about extortion and barratry. It's right there in the comment subject. And that's the most recent case of barratry, and is one that has been discussed here on Slashdot. If it throws people that I talk about a nigh-identical situation that occurred within the past six months because it's nigh-identical, rather than perfectly 100% identical, then that may be their problem.
The second is that you don't know what 'rises to the level of' means.
I certainly know what it means. My previous post pointed out that "rises to the level" may be perfectly fine when you want to angrily pound the table about something, but it's not the basis for a legal charge of barratry.
Third, in a world where someone actually got a patent on the wheel, for swinging side to side on a swingset, and for teasing a cat with a laser pointer you are appealing to the authority of a patent examiner.
Nice try there, but the Australian wheel patent was never examined. It was an "innovation patent," which is a registration-only system, and so was never examined for novelty or nonobviousness, by definition. It's a bit disingenuous not to mention that, since it directly contradicts your point.
The method for swinging on a swing was rejected, and the method of exercising a cat has long since expired. Only one of your examples has any merit, and it's almost 20 years old.
If I own a hamburger patent, and you own a carwash that does not serve food. Can I threaten you with a lawsuit? Can I threaten you with charging you for a crime if you don't settle the lawsuit? Can I then file a fake lawsuit and make you spend time and money to get it thrown out?
Just because you own a patent, doesn't mean you can threaten people with lawsuits, and when they don't cave in, doesn't mean you can file a lawsuit incorrectly.
What part of "and" do you not understand? From the post you're replying to:
They own the patents in question, and if there's any reasonable argument that the defendant infringes, even if you have to make a bunch of factual assumptions in favor of the plaintiff (those factual assumptions would be resolved at trial by the jury), then the suit isn't groundless.
It seems that in rushing to make your hamburger/carwash hypothetical, you stopped reading after the sixth word.
Righthaven was one example, but there are other ways one can be guilty of extortion or barratry even while actually owning the IP in question.
Well, yes, that's why in my last post, I said:
You have to own the IP rights and have a reasonable argument for infringement... but if you do, then it's not a groundless suit.
For example, if you own the IP but don't have a reasonable argument for infringement, then the suit is frivolous.
I really felt I was being clear that time. Is it the "and" that's confusing you? Please let me know so that I can communicate successfully. Is there a different language we should be using?
For example if you read TFA you'd know that the plaintiff threatened criminal charges (for calling plaintiff a troll, no less) unless defendant settled immediately.
I believe the threat was criminal charges for harassment of the inventor, not for patent infringement or refusal to sue. If you read TFA, you'd know that. If the defendant did harass the inventor, then criminal charges wouldn't be unwarranted, and an agreement to settle rather than press charges is perfectly legal.
Here's a tip - "barratry" is not "someone files a lawsuit I don't like". It's "someone intentionally files a frivolous lawsuit to harass or profit." The key is that (i) the lawsuit must be frivolous, and (ii) the filer must know it's frivolous and proceed anyway. If you harass someone and they threaten to sue you for harassment or pursue criminal charges, such a suit or charges would not be frivolous, because you actually did harass them. If they then offer to drop the suit or charges in exchange for $50, that's not barratry - the offer to settle doesn't travel back in time and magically negate your harassment.
Then there are the many patent cases where there is no REASONABLE argument for infringement. For example, the case in TFA is only true if every job match and dating service ever (even back in the days when the profiles were entered on punchcards) infringed.
Without actually citing the claims of the patent in question (which TFA does not do), you're merely pounding the table with an unsupported conclusion. You may be right, but that's pretty unlikely, since such a claim would be unlikely to ever fool a patent examiner. In fact, without even looking at the claim, I'll nonetheless bet you that I could come up with a way for a dating service not to infringe it.
Then there's the nonsense of explicitly threatening to increase the settlement demand simply for filing an answer to the suit, threatening ruinous discovery, etc.All taken together as a pattern of behavior, it could easily rise to the level of extortion or barratry.
Threatening to increase the settlement demand for filing an answer isn't nonsense. Say I sue you, and then offer to drop the suit for $5k. If you're going to take that settlement, but you first file a bunch of frivolous motions and answers that I have to respond to, just to increase my own costs past $5k, that's barratry. Why shouldn't I increase my settlement offer to account for my increased costs, incurred solely through your actions?
And no, "taken together as a pattern of behavior" it couldn't rise to the level of extortion. Extortion isn't a "level" of something, it's a specific crime. That's as inane as saying "taken together, it could rise to the level of murder" or "it could rise to the level of arson". No, it couldn't, there's no dead body or fire. And similarly, with no underlying frivolous lawsuit, there's no extortion here.
Slashdot Mirror
Dead on accurate. It's called acoustic timing. I suggest you listen to a Binaurial recording with headphones on to experience this.
Headphones with how many drivers? Exactly - binaural recordings work great with just two, and don't need the 8 mentioned in the earlier post. In fact, binaural recordings work best with two ear buds so that the shape of the ear doesn't adversely affect the recording.
You're right that timing is how we localize sounds (plus amplitude - the interaural amplitude difference or IAD is used for lower frequency sounds with wavelengths approaching or greater than the size of the head, while the interaural time difference or ITD is used for high frequency sounds). But that doesn't require 4 drivers in a single headphone cup to reproduce.
One-click is actually a great counterexample of your point - despite private bounties being placed on prior art, an EFF campaign seeking prior art, and four years of reexamination that confirmed patentability, people still bring it up as if it were a "mockery of the entire patent system".
The fact that the "one-click" patent may actually be a legally valid patent is exactly what makes it a "mockery of the entire patent system". A reasonable patent system (were such a thing not a logical impossibility) would exclude such patents. If ours does not, that just reaffirms how unreasonable the system is.
On what grounds would a "reasonable patent system" exclude it? It hasn't been shown to be anticipated or obvious in view of prior art, in spite of all of the efforts that have been thrown at it, so those wouldn't be reasonable grounds. Because it's related to computers? Because it's related to business? Is it reasonable to exclude an entire industry from patentability, even if their inventions are new and nonobvious? And if so, where do you define the boundaries of that industry: if you say business methods are out, then what about machines that help in business? If stuff related to retail is excluded, then what about stuff related to wholesale?
A "reasonable patent system" can't be an arbitrary one, so you must have clear and concrete grounds for why such inventions should be excluded from patentability.
Bezos is synonymous with bad patents in my mind... all because of his one-click patent which makes a mockery of the entire patent system and undermines any validity his other patents might have.
One-click is actually a great counterexample of your point - despite private bounties being placed on prior art, an EFF campaign seeking prior art, and four years of reexamination that confirmed patentability, people still bring it up as if it were a "mockery of the entire patent system". Clearly ,that's not because the patent is invalid or obvious, since despite all of those efforts, no one has ever been able to show that - rather, it's because of the millions of dollars that have been spending in a propaganda campaign to convince software developers not to patent their inventions. Accordingly, discussions of the one-click patent can be a great indicator of people who have been misled by that propaganda - frequently, without ever actually having read the claims of the patent at all (after all, it's not, by any means, a patent on "clicking once").
IANAL, but the quick Google based research I did I could find nothing to suggest there is much in the way of codified law out there that makes special consideration for SEPs vs other patents. It all comes down to FRAND licensing which is contractual agreement between members of the standards organization / patent pool. The Administration is not a party.
If a court adjudicates the dispute between Apple and Samsung and determines in Samsungs favor the Administration does not seem to be doing anything other than "making it up as they go along" by stepping in here. I'd love to see some documentation to the contrary if anyone can point something out, but it sure looks like just another case Obama abusively broad interpretation of presidential power.
There's a ton of precedent in antitrust law having to do with SEPs vs. other patents. But yes, at their heart, they're contractual agreements and the administration is not a party. So? If Microsoft has a contract with OEMs that force them to include IE pre-installed and no other browsers, the DoJ can still step in, even though they're not a party. This is a similar anti-trust issue.
And this isn't a court dispute per se, either - it's at the International Trade Commission, which is an executive branch body. The ITC can't award monetary damages, you'll note - the most they can do is ban imports of devices. That's because they're essentially part of the customs branch. So, again, not a "broad interpretation of presidential power".
"The Policy Statement expresses substantial concerns, which I strongly share, about the potential harms that can result from owners of standards-essential patents ("SEPs") who have made a voluntary commitment to offer to license SEPs on terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND"), gaining undue leverage and engaging in "patent hold-up", i.e., asserting the patent to exclude an implementer of the standard from a market to obtain a higher price for use of the patent than would have been possible before the standard was set, when alternative technologies could have been chosen."
Except that's not what happened. Samsung was more than willing to licence the patents on terms that the court agreed were fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. Apple wanted discriminatory pricing and Obama basically said it wasn't fair because paying the same percentage as everyone else would eat into Apple's profits too much.
Incidentally, from the dissent in the ITC Opinion:
... In the present investigation, however, although Apple failed in the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge to meet the burden of proof in establishing an affirmative defense based on FRAND, the weight of the evidence before the Commission in this remedial phase indicates that Samsung has thus far been unable or unwilling to make a FRAND licensing offer to Apple in relation to the '348 patent. The absence of a FRAND licensing offer from the course of dealings between the parties clearly has a bearing on whether relief under Section 337 is in the public interest.
I note in this regard that Samsung has made no effort to demonstrate that the license terms it has offered Apple specifically with respect to the '348 patent, or specifically with respect to a portfolio of declared-essential patents that includes it, satisfy an objective standard of reasonableness...
I think that pretty conclusively disproves your assertion.
"The Policy Statement expresses substantial concerns, which I strongly share, about the potential harms that can result from owners of standards-essential patents ("SEPs") who have made a voluntary commitment to offer to license SEPs on terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND"), gaining undue leverage and engaging in "patent hold-up", i.e., asserting the patent to exclude an implementer of the standard from a market to obtain a higher price for use of the patent than would have been possible before the standard was set, when alternative technologies could have been chosen."
Except that's not what happened. Samsung was more than willing to licence the patents on terms that the court agreed were fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. Apple wanted discriminatory pricing and Obama basically said it wasn't fair because paying the same percentage as everyone else would eat into Apple's profits too much.
[Citation needed]. I quoted from the Obama statement above, and it says the exact opposite from what you claim it says. If you have a direct and contradictory quote to support your assertion, please provide it.
It's a dangerous game to play because the result could be South Korea being granted the right to ignore certain US patents.
No, it wouldn't. Apple doesn't have the right to ignore Samsung's patents - they're still on the hook for monetary damages. The only point is that Samsung can't use the harsh stick of a total injunction, but have to settle for receiving a big fat check. And that's because Samsung voluntarily agreed "we won't use the harsh stick of a total injunction, but will settle for receiving big fat checks" when they entered into the FRAND agreements. Accordingly, there's no way that WIPO would look at this and say "because the US enforced a FRAND agreement and would only award money for patent infringement here, therefore Korea can steal US inventions willy-nilly."
Let me put it this way: We both make widgets. I have all the technology to make the widget function properly and you do not. You say my widget looks too much like your widget, and its copying your desing, so you sue me and take a bunch of money out of my pocket. THEN you say you need to license my technology to make your widgets. Is it that unreasonable to assume I'd charge you a higher rate to license my product? Is that really being a jerk?
It's acting like someone with hurt feelings, which really has no place in an economic deal between two corporations.
More importantly, you make widget-function technology and have approached every widget manufacturer and said, "Friends, colleagues, competitors, lend me your ears! Having a dozen different function technologies impairs interoperability, and pisses off consumers. If you all agree to standardize on my widget technology, I will charge everyone a fair and reasonable royalty. Then we can all use the same technology, consumers will be happy, we'll all make more money, and everything is wonderful!"
... and then a few years later, you say: "Hey, you, iWidgets Corp.! You sued me when I copied your designs, so I'm going to double your royalties for my widget standard."
That is being a jerk.
Perhaps, but a different kind of technology. FRAND patents covering radio communications require billions of dollars in research and development to push the envelope of how much data can be transmitted, how to transition from one tower to another in the middle of a phone call with no interruption, etc. I seriously doubt Apple's "R&D" on bounceback scrolling and slide to unlock is anywhere near the amount of money Samsung sunk into the technology of their FRAND patents.
Agreed, and that's why if it were me, I'd say that the Apple ones merit a smaller royalty than the Samsung ones. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
If not, then the fact that interface patents are given higher priority in ITC bans as well as higher awards in courts is just plain fucked up.
They're not given a higher priority because they're interface patents (and they're not actually given a higher priority at all - both cases took the same amount of time). The ITC bans aren't available for standards patents because they're on standards. The fact that other stuff is not on a standard and bans are available doesn't mean that we're elevating user interfaces over radio technology, it's simply saying you don't get to voluntarily agree to put your patents into a pool for a standard, and then suddenly go for injunctions against everyone using the standard.
According to bullshit decisions like Obama's, apparently it's not as nice of an income stream as keeping the patents and technologies proprietary and leaving Apple to come up with their own technologies for transmitting phone calls.
If you keep the patents and technologies proprietary, then it's not in the standard, and everyone else adopts a different standard and someone else, like Nokia for example, gets the income stream. What's bullshiat about that?
Samsung and the other victims of Apple lawsuits have to be considering this. After all of the lawsuits and attempts to ban their products, FRAND is starting to seem like much more of a liability than an asset.
Sure, if you're a litigator rather than a businessman. I mean, the former can hope for these rare billion dollar decisions after years of expensive fights, while the latter has to be happy with a constant stream of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in perpetuity.
Fundamentally, I think you're misreading the article and misunderstanding the whole ban. That Obama vetoed the Samsung ITC ban doesn't mean that Apple gets to infringe scot-free. Samsung can still collect monetary damages. All it means is that Apple can still import their products - and, coincidentally, keep infringing the standard patent and keep increasing the amount of monetary damages they'll owe Samsung.
What is their patent on a "headphone jack sensor"? Is this anything like the sensor that portable radios have had for decades that let them switch off the speaker when the headphones are plugged in?
Nope. This is actually a sensor to determine, when headphones are plugged in, whether they're just stereo headphones, headphones+mic, or headphones+mic+control interface.
Whether there's anticipatory prior art for that is a different question, but the dumb normally-closed TRS jacks that have been used in patch bays for decades are not the same thing and all, and can make no determinations about the device plugged in, just whether a device is plugged in.
Thanks, when I tried to look it up, all I could find was references to this current decision with nothing about the actual patents that Apple claims were violated.
FOSSPatents has an article with links to the Apple patents... but you know how Florian is received here at Slashdot. ;)
Nope. This is actually a sensor to determine, when headphones are plugged in, whether they're just stereo headphones, headphones+mic, or headphones+mic+control interface.
That is so totally freaking innovative. I would never, ever have thought of building in a sensor to detect what type of headphones were plugged in.
Man, these guys are smart.
Again, from my post, because you apparently missed it:
Whether there's anticipatory prior art for that is a different question, but the dumb normally-closed TRS jacks that have been used in patch bays for decades are not the same thing at all, and can make no determinations about the device plugged in, just whether a device is plugged in.
I never claimed it was "totally freaking innovative". I merely pointed out that it's not the same as a normalling plug. Is that too complicated for you?
What is their patent on a "headphone jack sensor"? Is this anything like the sensor that portable radios have had for decades that let them switch off the speaker when the headphones are plugged in?
Nope. This is actually a sensor to determine, when headphones are plugged in, whether they're just stereo headphones, headphones+mic, or headphones+mic+control interface.
Whether there's anticipatory prior art for that is a different question, but the dumb normally-closed TRS jacks that have been used in patch bays for decades are not the same thing and all, and can make no determinations about the device plugged in, just whether a device is plugged in.
He bailed out Apple in order to "preserve the market" or some such claptrap. How is treating Samsung differently remotely consistent here?
Because one is a patent on a non-standard user interface, and the other is a patent on a standard radio technology. Because the owner of former did not agree to let others use the technology, while the owner of the latter voluntarily said "yes, everyone can use this technology and I will not exert undue pressure or attempt to get injunctions against you, and will instead accept a reasonable monetary royalty."
The subtleties of the two bans don't really matter since that wasn't the stated reason for giving Apple a free ride last time around.
You're wrong, it was explicitly the reason:
"The Policy Statement expresses substantial concerns, which I strongly share, about the potential harms that can result from owners of standards-essential patents ("SEPs") who have made a voluntary commitment to offer to license SEPs on terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND"), gaining undue leverage and engaging in "patent hold-up", i.e., asserting the patent to exclude an implementer of the standard from a market to obtain a higher price for use of the patent than would have been possible before the standard was set, when alternative technologies could have been chosen."
Flaming hypocrisy.
Of course getting near the presidency will ensure that your candidate is just like any other corrupt white guy regardless of whether your candidate is black or a woman. No one should ever had any delusions in that regard.
Samsung's patents are FRAND because they are over actual technology, you know, stuff like radios, modulation techniques, and other things actually developed in a lab.
Apples patents are for things like bouncy scrolling, and slide to unlock.
User interfaces are also "actual technology", Linux die-hards gripes notwithstanding.
No more FRAND patents. No company making actual technology has any economic interest in putting its patents under FRAND terms. Decades of cooperation on technology standards come to an end.
Samsung didn't put its patents under FRAND because of the goodness of their hearts - it's because they get guaranteed royalties at a Fair and Reasonable rate from every participant with the standard. That's a nice income stream, provided they don't start being jerks about it and demanding unreasonable rates from people they don't like.
But even more importantly, your fundamental point is wrong:
If the holder of FRAND patents cannot negotiate with an infringer for a fair price, and the infringer can also sue over its own patents and demand outrageous royalties per device, then the end result is clear.
These pair of decisions do not mean that FRAND patent owners "cannot negotiate with an infringer for a fair price". It's just that they can't hold the infringer's products hostage by preventing import. Basically:
Would it not be more beneficial for your attorney to arrange some plea deal? As somebody who is not an expert on criminal law, I would keep my mouth shut until I talked to my attorney. I'd let the expert on criminal justice decide if it was worth confessing instead of hoping for the best.
More importantly, his argument relies on the presumption that "the police [will] testify to the judge that you were cooperative." That presumption may hold true in the movies or on television, but in reality, the police never do anything of the sort.
"One Click" (finally defeated)...
The One-Click patent was confirmed as patentable after reexamination.
What prevents the revenge porn site from routinely filing the copyright with the LOC?
Lack of ownership and penalties for perjury when they're caught?
Article:
The USPTO, for example, is established in the US Constitution, and has its own funding that doesn’t depend on annual Congressional appropriations to the extent that some others do.
See, Subby, it's not that the funding is guaranteed by the Constitution, but that the funding comes from its own fees rather than Congressional allotment. Consider, the very same clause in the Constitution that establishes the Patent Office also establishes the Copyright Office... And yet, the Copyright Office is closed. The difference is that it only costs $35 to register a copyright, and costs upwards of $3000 in fees to get a patent.
'Revenge porn' is nearly always copyright violation. Clearly the 'model' has not signed off on this usage, and in the case of 'sexting' in particular, the 'model' is usually the 'photographer' too and therefore has ALL publication and distribution rights to the image, not just the model rights.
Anyone publishing revenge porn or hosting revenge porn sites is operating on the same level of self delusion as kazaa had when it asserted it 'presumes its users had the rights to the files being shared' while at the same time advertising you could get all the top hits for free.
Same thing here, they disclaim that the photo submitters have the rights to submit these photos while at the same time promoting the ability to get revenge on your ex by publishing the pictures she sexted you... literally inducing copyright infringment by definition.
If anything these website operators deserve to be shut down more than Kazaa did because these guys are are actually hosting/distributing the content.
I've made the same point (and I'm an IP attorney, so yes, you're right regarding the copyright ownership), but there's a counterpoint: these photos are not intended for distribution or sale, and so the actual damages for illegally distributing them is going to be (a) negligible, and (b) nigh-impossible to prove.
"But wait," you say. "What about statutory damages of up to $150,000 for willful infringement? Surely, that's a better fit here (and a more apt punishment) than the Jammie Thomas or Joel Tenenbaum RIAA cases!"
And you're absolutely right... except that to get statutory damages, you have to register your copyright.
By sending a copy to the Library of Congress.
Where it is publicly archived and available.
Your intimate sex picture.
That you're suing over because you don't want it publicly available.
Dang.
Nonetheless, once it's published on a revenge-porn site, the damage has already been done, so someone wise could quickly register their copyright (you have 3 months from first publication) and then (a) file a DMCA takedown to get it removed, with huge penalties if they don't, and (b) file suit for statutory damages for willful infringement against the ex who stole it.
Actually, it isn't. Filing a patent infringement lawsuit on a patent you don't own is very much not legal, which is why they tried so hard to hide that fact. So no, they likely won't get money. And the lawyer representing NPS will be lucky if he isn't disbarred.
If you read the judge's order, the ownership issue isn't so cut and dried, which is why he denied Fortinet's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Specifically, MPH signed a contract assigning the patent to NPS on day X. NPS filed suit on day Y. NPS signed the contract on day Z. Under Texas contract law, the contract need not be signed by NPS if there's mutual assent of the parties. This is actually a common provision - in many states, contracts only need to be signed by the person the contract is going to be enforced against. So, for example, if MPH wasn't going to enforce the contract against NPS ("take my property or I'll sue you to force you to take my property"?), then it didn't need a signature. Anyways, in Texas, that mutual assent can be shown by conduct of the parties, including NPS filing suit on day Y.
In other words, if the jury looks at the contract and determines that both MPH and NPS believed that, as of day Y, NPS owned the patent, then NPS did own the patent on that day, and there's no lack of standing.
And as long as that argument exists (and frankly, it's not a bad argument, because who can reasonably believe that an internal transfer from a company to a shell company didn't have assent of both companies?), then the lawyer can't possibly be disbarred for it.
more concerned with just getting the application off his/her docket.
So, stamp it 'DENIED'.
They do. 80-90% of patent applications are initially rejected.
So, care to comment on the threat to file bogus criminal charges unless they settled?
With just one side of the story, there's not enough information to know what they're talking about. Plus, it seems to be a bit confused. From the Doubleclick guy's blog post, he called up the inventor and asked her a bunch of questions and she repeatedly refused to comment:
I reached out to Shapiro directly to ask her a few questions about her interest in the patent and let’s just say she was not thrilled. I asked Ms. Shapiro if she held any economic interest in the patent and she repeatedly recited the same thing, “I was a co-inventor of the patent but no longer own the patent.” In other words, she refused to answer the question and claimed not to know the lawyer I was referring to.
He then got a call from the plaintiff's attorney:
Later that day, we received another phone call from Wasserbauer. Wasserbauer claimed that we had committed a “hate crime” against Shapiro and were in violation of the discovery process, which was false. He then told us we had until the end of the day to settle the case or face criminal charges for harassment. We immediately notified the FBI of his extortion attempt.
... so he says that the plaintiff's attorney told him that he committed a "hate crime", but then the attorney says he'll press charges for harassment. That's a bit different than a hate crime, and from the guy's blog post, it does sound like he was harassing the inventor with those repeated questions. Worthy of a criminal complaint? Unlikely... but ascertainably "bogus"? Not without more information. Like a recording of the call would be great, or at least a statement from the inventor with her side of the story.
Certainly, I wouldn't publicly accuse an alleged victim of lying about harassment based only on a statement from the accused person, and without ever hearing what the alleged victim said, seeing a transcript, hearing a record, etc., and knowing that the accused person was the one who initiated the communication. That seems to be outrageously stupid. Your opinion may vary, of course.
Third, in a world where someone actually got a patent on the wheel, for swinging side to side on a swingset, and for teasing a cat with a laser pointer you are appealing to the authority of a patent examiner.
Oh, and additionally, your deflection aside, my underlying point remains the same: you say, without any evidence, that the patent covers every version of matching two things together throughout history. You haven't even quoted the patent claims. Are we seriously to believe your extraordinary claim, when you then have to point to Australian registration systems to support it, rather than merely quoting the patent in question?
The first thing throwing people is you're talking about a copyright case in relation to patents.
I thought we were talking about extortion and barratry. It's right there in the comment subject. And that's the most recent case of barratry, and is one that has been discussed here on Slashdot. If it throws people that I talk about a nigh-identical situation that occurred within the past six months because it's nigh-identical, rather than perfectly 100% identical, then that may be their problem.
The second is that you don't know what 'rises to the level of' means.
I certainly know what it means. My previous post pointed out that "rises to the level" may be perfectly fine when you want to angrily pound the table about something, but it's not the basis for a legal charge of barratry.
Third, in a world where someone actually got a patent on the wheel, for swinging side to side on a swingset, and for teasing a cat with a laser pointer you are appealing to the authority of a patent examiner.
Nice try there, but the Australian wheel patent was never examined. It was an "innovation patent," which is a registration-only system, and so was never examined for novelty or nonobviousness, by definition. It's a bit disingenuous not to mention that, since it directly contradicts your point.
The method for swinging on a swing was rejected, and the method of exercising a cat has long since expired. Only one of your examples has any merit, and it's almost 20 years old.
If I own a hamburger patent, and you own a carwash that does not serve food. Can I threaten you with a lawsuit? Can I threaten you with charging you for a crime if you don't settle the lawsuit? Can I then file a fake lawsuit and make you spend time and money to get it thrown out? Just because you own a patent, doesn't mean you can threaten people with lawsuits, and when they don't cave in, doesn't mean you can file a lawsuit incorrectly.
What part of "and" do you not understand? From the post you're replying to:
They own the patents in question, and if there's any reasonable argument that the defendant infringes, even if you have to make a bunch of factual assumptions in favor of the plaintiff (those factual assumptions would be resolved at trial by the jury), then the suit isn't groundless.
It seems that in rushing to make your hamburger/carwash hypothetical, you stopped reading after the sixth word.
Righthaven was one example, but there are other ways one can be guilty of extortion or barratry even while actually owning the IP in question.
Well, yes, that's why in my last post, I said:
You have to own the IP rights and have a reasonable argument for infringement... but if you do, then it's not a groundless suit.
For example, if you own the IP but don't have a reasonable argument for infringement, then the suit is frivolous.
I really felt I was being clear that time. Is it the "and" that's confusing you? Please let me know so that I can communicate successfully. Is there a different language we should be using?
For example if you read TFA you'd know that the plaintiff threatened criminal charges (for calling plaintiff a troll, no less) unless defendant settled immediately.
I believe the threat was criminal charges for harassment of the inventor, not for patent infringement or refusal to sue. If you read TFA, you'd know that. If the defendant did harass the inventor, then criminal charges wouldn't be unwarranted, and an agreement to settle rather than press charges is perfectly legal.
Here's a tip - "barratry" is not "someone files a lawsuit I don't like". It's "someone intentionally files a frivolous lawsuit to harass or profit." The key is that (i) the lawsuit must be frivolous, and (ii) the filer must know it's frivolous and proceed anyway. If you harass someone and they threaten to sue you for harassment or pursue criminal charges, such a suit or charges would not be frivolous, because you actually did harass them. If they then offer to drop the suit or charges in exchange for $50, that's not barratry - the offer to settle doesn't travel back in time and magically negate your harassment.
Then there are the many patent cases where there is no REASONABLE argument for infringement. For example, the case in TFA is only true if every job match and dating service ever (even back in the days when the profiles were entered on punchcards) infringed.
Without actually citing the claims of the patent in question (which TFA does not do), you're merely pounding the table with an unsupported conclusion. You may be right, but that's pretty unlikely, since such a claim would be unlikely to ever fool a patent examiner. In fact, without even looking at the claim, I'll nonetheless bet you that I could come up with a way for a dating service not to infringe it.
Then there's the nonsense of explicitly threatening to increase the settlement demand simply for filing an answer to the suit, threatening ruinous discovery, etc.All taken together as a pattern of behavior, it could easily rise to the level of extortion or barratry.
Threatening to increase the settlement demand for filing an answer isn't nonsense. Say I sue you, and then offer to drop the suit for $5k. If you're going to take that settlement, but you first file a bunch of frivolous motions and answers that I have to respond to, just to increase my own costs past $5k, that's barratry. Why shouldn't I increase my settlement offer to account for my increased costs, incurred solely through your actions?
And no, "taken together as a pattern of behavior" it couldn't rise to the level of extortion. Extortion isn't a "level" of something, it's a specific crime. That's as inane as saying "taken together, it could rise to the level of murder" or "it could rise to the level of arson". No, it couldn't, there's no dead body or fire. And similarly, with no underlying frivolous lawsuit, there's no extortion here.