since I haven't read anything suggesting EQ2 is coming to the mac I know what MMORPG I will be buying......actually none since I don't think I'll have time to play while in law school *DOH* But if I did....it would be WoW all the way!!!
Invent, patent, don't produce, then sue. Sounds better than 100 hr work weeks bringing a project together...
I know we're talking software patents here and those are a different breed (because copyright applies also)..... but wouldn't it suck to work 100 hr weeks for a year bringing a project together only to have a rival company copy it the day it's released, spending 1/10th the time and money you did? There's got to be a place for patents somewhere.....
Well.. I have the impression that the European Patent Office does a better job than the USPTO at this. Yet European Patents aren't prohibitively expensive, nore is the EPO tax-financed.
I would argue that the vast majority of problem patents in the US are software patents. The EPO doesn't allow those.....yet. So it's not really apples to apples.
What you can do, though, when a company has a patent and is threatening to sue people is file a lawsuit seeing declaratory judgement. You're basically asking a court (it can still be a jury trial) to declare that you do not violate the patent. One outcome of this could be invalidating the patent.
It would be perfectly acceptable in this circumstance for a large number of small businesses to join as plaintiffs in this type of action.
Of course the downside of doing this is that you might lose. But I suppose that's no worse than just paying up for licenses (other than that you'd have to cough up some lawyers fees)
It's the responsibility of the USPTO not to grant invalid patents.
It would be nice if it worked that way, but it would be very inefficient to run such a system. A perfectly run USPTO would result in much fewer lawsuits, saving some money. But it would either make it prohibitively expensive to get a patent (thereby eliminating everyone except large corporations from getting one) or it would have to be paid for with taxes (everyone's favorite topic). The system we have now, with some tweaks, is a good compromise.
There's a comparison to be made to the open source community. Why is open source software better? Because when you have thousands or millions of eyes looking at something you'll find more errors and have a better quality product in the end.
The same logic applies to patents. A single examiner in the USPTO can't possibly research every possible document in existence looking for prior art. The USPTO needs to take advantage of the eyes of others. They do that through the pre-grant publication and reexamination proceedings. Because the publication process only allows for a short period to submit prior art it means that many patents will be granted that later get overturned.
All the USPTO can make is a good effort and require that the patent application be written according to the guidelines so it can be understood by others (other patent lawyers that is).
Presumaly they paired this high a megapixel CMOS with some nice optics, so you're probably right in this case. But it's not always true that higher megapixel indicates better cropping ability.
First, it is an SLR so you have a pretty wide selection of optics - some good, some not so good. Second, you're right about the higher MP. There were a number of absolutely terrible 8MP cameras released recently that weren't even as good as the 6MP cameras on the market. That's why sample images are so important (and why dpreview rules!)
I think even more significant than the fact that it will be going head-to-head with Apple is the fact that Microsoft will be going head-to-head with companies already using Microsoft technology for their music stores (and it will be doing so from the "has-a-monopoly-on-the-OS" position.
I am very curious to see how Napster, MM, etc... play their hands on this one.
Disappointing? Yes. But it shouldn't come as a surprise. For some reason (bad) Sci Fi producers seem to like making the enemy have personality - someone you can talk to. Just look at the terrible things they did to the Borg in Star Trek : First Contact. The idea of having an enemy be just a force that's Out There(tm) and not interactive just doesn't occur to some people.
Just wait until your kids draw on the screen with real pens. If bozos at Kroger can't figure out to use the pen attached to the display, how is my 3-year old supposed to?
You have to look at the cost-benefit comparison of patents and see how it relates to software:
Cost: people can't use an idea for a certain amount of time without paying the inventor (this time is incredibly long in any high tech field, including software)
Benefit: - it encourages spending on research and technology (the software patents we hear about didn't require much of this other than writing the code - the "invention" was just a natural result of the design of the product) - it encourages inventors to disclose their inventions (while this may be useful for things like manufacturing processes that would otherwise be trade secrets, software almost inherently discloses the invention when the software is released)
I think that the cost side for software patents outweighs the benefit side. IOW software patents give less to society than they take away.
This is a nice clear-cut example of software patents stifling the market. And one would hope that this little lesson might help people re-evaluate the idea of having software patents. But that's probably too much to hope for.
And the fact that your own comments contradict themselves makes you a hypocrite
I would love for you to point out where my comments supported software patents in particular instead of the patent system as a whole. You don't even have to look far. This very thread totally disproves your premise
What's funny is that it doesn't take much creativity to read my sig and infer how I feel about software patents. But people like jumping to conclusions when the conclusion lets them get in a good rant.....
Is this going to hinge on the definition of "developed"? Does develop mean "created from scratch" or simply "improved upon"? While I generally think of the former while working on code, the latter seems to be better supported in the dictionary.
Yeah, but what about those he had developed _prior_ to working at that company?
I can't read the article (/.ed) but to answer that question we need to find out whether the court finding was that: 1) He DID create his invention before working at the company BUT the company owned it because of the employment agreement 2) There was not sufficient evidence that he created his invention before working at the company so the company owned it because of the employment agreement
Obviously, the employment agreement is the common thread here. I like the rule that anything you do on your own time is yours.
Let's analyse the phrase "Ignorant troll", shall we?
Ignorant: I have studied patents extensively, including conversations with patent examiners
So far you're 0-1
Troll: On slashdot, anyone who appears to support patents is likely to be shouted down. It's amazing the hate the any defense of the patent system inspires in some people. Knowing this, it could be claimed that I am inviting a shouting match.
Even if the reasons for suggesting changes are due to software patents, the suggestions themselves have mostly had to due with changing all patents. So which one of us is it that needs to learn to read?
So stop using *physical* patents as examples for your flawed arguments!
None of the suggestions I have responded to referred only to software patents.
If you want patents to only apply to physical things then your arguments (and those of many others) are flawed. Suggesting a change to the patent system that would affect all patents when you only believe there is a problem with soft patents (software and business processes) is the height of stupidity.
And if you had actually paid attention to my other posts you would see that I am, in general, not in favor of software patents. I have also provided solid reasons and arguments to back this up. That's far beyond your pathetic attempts at contributing to the discussion.
Patents are frequently for inventions "whose time has come". Many people indenpendently invent the same thing in a short space of time. One person gets a potentially multi-million dollar advantage and everybody else loses. That's wrong.
IMO multiple people working on the same invention shouldn't preclude a patent. There were multiple groups working on finding a good light bulb filament. Would Edison, et al have been so willing to invest the time and money in the research if there had been no patent protection? I wonder.
I think this is where obviousness comes in. I am comfortable with the requirement that an invention simply be non-obvious. I am, however, uncomfortable with the way that standard is being currently applied.
Since when do 5, Informative posts on slashdot with merely a suggestion and no indication why the suggestion would actually achieve a positive result actually constitute proof? My how low we have fallen.
If you're going to tell someone to STFU you should at least have the balls to post with your name.
Slashdot Mirror
since I haven't read anything suggesting EQ2 is coming to the mac I know what MMORPG I will be buying......actually none since I don't think I'll have time to play while in law school
*DOH*
But if I did....it would be WoW all the way!!!
Invent, patent, don't produce, then sue. Sounds better than 100 hr work weeks bringing a project together...
..... but wouldn't it suck to work 100 hr weeks for a year bringing a project together only to have a rival company copy it the day it's released, spending 1/10th the time and money you did? There's got to be a place for patents somewhere.....
I know we're talking software patents here and those are a different breed (because copyright applies also)
Well.. I have the impression that the European Patent Office does a better job than the USPTO at this. Yet European Patents aren't prohibitively expensive, nore is the EPO tax-financed.
I would argue that the vast majority of problem patents in the US are software patents. The EPO doesn't allow those.....yet. So it's not really apples to apples.
Class action would be a way.
Class action doesn't work that way.
What you can do, though, when a company has a patent and is threatening to sue people is file a lawsuit seeing declaratory judgement. You're basically asking a court (it can still be a jury trial) to declare that you do not violate the patent. One outcome of this could be invalidating the patent.
It would be perfectly acceptable in this circumstance for a large number of small businesses to join as plaintiffs in this type of action.
Of course the downside of doing this is that you might lose. But I suppose that's no worse than just paying up for licenses (other than that you'd have to cough up some lawyers fees)
It's the responsibility of the USPTO not to grant invalid patents.
It would be nice if it worked that way, but it would be very inefficient to run such a system. A perfectly run USPTO would result in much fewer lawsuits, saving some money. But it would either make it prohibitively expensive to get a patent (thereby eliminating everyone except large corporations from getting one) or it would have to be paid for with taxes (everyone's favorite topic). The system we have now, with some tweaks, is a good compromise.
Problem 2 (undertrained) seems to be a result of problem 1 (not enough money).
A new law going into effect this fall (I believe) should go a long way to fixing this problem.
Problem 3, what is patentable, was created by Congress. That's the place the problem needs to be fixed.
There's a comparison to be made to the open source community. Why is open source software better? Because when you have thousands or millions of eyes looking at something you'll find more errors and have a better quality product in the end.
The same logic applies to patents. A single examiner in the USPTO can't possibly research every possible document in existence looking for prior art. The USPTO needs to take advantage of the eyes of others. They do that through the pre-grant publication and reexamination proceedings. Because the publication process only allows for a short period to submit prior art it means that many patents will be granted that later get overturned.
All the USPTO can make is a good effort and require that the patent application be written according to the guidelines so it can be understood by others (other patent lawyers that is).
Presumaly they paired this high a megapixel CMOS with some nice optics, so you're probably right in this case. But it's not always true that higher megapixel indicates better cropping ability.
First, it is an SLR so you have a pretty wide selection of optics - some good, some not so good. Second, you're right about the higher MP. There were a number of absolutely terrible 8MP cameras released recently that weren't even as good as the 6MP cameras on the market. That's why sample images are so important (and why dpreview rules!)
Also, music is at a higher quality - 160kbps VBR.
What he means to say is that the music is at a higher data rate. Quality is dependant upon the codec AND the data rate.
I think even more significant than the fact that it will be going head-to-head with Apple is the fact that Microsoft will be going head-to-head with companies already using Microsoft technology for their music stores (and it will be doing so from the "has-a-monopoly-on-the-OS" position.
I am very curious to see how Napster, MM, etc... play their hands on this one.
This was a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode? It was pretty good until it got kind of lame at the end....
Disappointing? Yes. But it shouldn't come as a surprise. For some reason (bad) Sci Fi producers seem to like making the enemy have personality - someone you can talk to. Just look at the terrible things they did to the Borg in Star Trek : First Contact. The idea of having an enemy be just a force that's Out There(tm) and not interactive just doesn't occur to some people.
Just wait until your kids draw on the screen with real pens. If bozos at Kroger can't figure out to use the pen attached to the display, how is my 3-year old supposed to?
A closer look reveals that MacOnLinux won't work on his IBM laptop since it's a PPC-only setup.
You have to look at the cost-benefit comparison of patents and see how it relates to software:
Cost:
people can't use an idea for a certain amount of time without paying the inventor (this time is incredibly long in any high tech field, including software)
Benefit:
- it encourages spending on research and technology (the software patents we hear about didn't require much of this other than writing the code - the "invention" was just a natural result of the design of the product)
- it encourages inventors to disclose their inventions (while this may be useful for things like manufacturing processes that would otherwise be trade secrets, software almost inherently discloses the invention when the software is released)
I think that the cost side for software patents outweighs the benefit side. IOW software patents give less to society than they take away.
This is a nice clear-cut example of software patents stifling the market. And one would hope that this little lesson might help people re-evaluate the idea of having software patents. But that's probably too much to hope for.
And the fact that your own comments contradict themselves makes you a hypocrite
9 86 0656
I would love for you to point out where my comments supported software patents in particular instead of the patent system as a whole. You don't even have to look far. This very thread totally disproves your premise
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=116519&cid=
This is why most people don't make good lawyers: the inability to think clearly and make logical arguments.
What's funny is that it doesn't take much creativity to read my sig and infer how I feel about software patents. But people like jumping to conclusions when the conclusion lets them get in a good rant.....
Is this going to hinge on the definition of "developed"? Does develop mean "created from scratch" or simply "improved upon"? While I generally think of the former while working on code, the latter seems to be better supported in the dictionary.
Yeah, but what about those he had developed _prior_ to working at that company?
I can't read the article (/.ed) but to answer that question we need to find out whether the court finding was that:
1) He DID create his invention before working at the company BUT the company owned it because of the employment agreement
2) There was not sufficient evidence that he created his invention before working at the company so the company owned it because of the employment agreement
Obviously, the employment agreement is the common thread here. I like the rule that anything you do on your own time is yours.
Woah! There are two of you!
Let's analyse the phrase "Ignorant troll", shall we?
Ignorant: I have studied patents extensively, including conversations with patent examiners
So far you're 0-1
Troll: On slashdot, anyone who appears to support patents is likely to be shouted down. It's amazing the hate the any defense of the patent system inspires in some people. Knowing this, it could be claimed that I am inviting a shouting match.
I'll give you this one, making you 1-2
Not bad for an Anonymous Troll
Even if the reasons for suggesting changes are due to software patents, the suggestions themselves have mostly had to due with changing all patents. So which one of us is it that needs to learn to read?
So stop using *physical* patents as examples for your flawed arguments!
None of the suggestions I have responded to referred only to software patents.
If you want patents to only apply to physical things then your arguments (and those of many others) are flawed. Suggesting a change to the patent system that would affect all patents when you only believe there is a problem with soft patents (software and business processes) is the height of stupidity.
And if you had actually paid attention to my other posts you would see that I am, in general, not in favor of software patents. I have also provided solid reasons and arguments to back this up. That's far beyond your pathetic attempts at contributing to the discussion.
Patents are frequently for inventions "whose time has come". Many people indenpendently invent the same thing in a short space of time. One person gets a potentially multi-million dollar advantage and everybody else loses. That's wrong.
IMO multiple people working on the same invention shouldn't preclude a patent. There were multiple groups working on finding a good light bulb filament. Would Edison, et al have been so willing to invest the time and money in the research if there had been no patent protection? I wonder.
I think this is where obviousness comes in. I am comfortable with the requirement that an invention simply be non-obvious. I am, however, uncomfortable with the way that standard is being currently applied.
I feel like I have a digital stalker. Not everyone has one of those. I think it's really neat. And it makes me feel really special.
Since when do 5, Informative posts on slashdot with merely a suggestion and no indication why the suggestion would actually achieve a positive result actually constitute proof? My how low we have fallen.
If you're going to tell someone to STFU you should at least have the balls to post with your name.