He never incorporated, so he's not a corporation. A sole proprietorship is a completely different sort of legal entity; the owner is personally responsible (and liable) for everything.
The "corporations are people" thing is a separate issue. The purpose of a corporation is to provide legal separation between the owner(s) and the company. But some corporate entities apparently want to have their cake and eat it too -- the legal protections they get by incorporating and the rights of a "person".
Even if we take the (rather far-fetched IMO) view that this patent is actually enforceable, how is the end user liable? Shouldn't responsibility for this be on the manufacturer of the access point and/or the controller chip contained therein?
With that approach there is still a manual procedure to install the key into the list of things trusted by Secure Boot. This is by design (of Secure Boot), otherwise malware (e.g. a rootkit) could sign itself and add itself to the list. Seems to me what they're trying to avoid is requiring the user to manually install the key or dig through the BIOS to figure out how to disable Secure Boot.
Good luck with that. Asus (largest motherboard maker) isn't very Linux friendly. They sometimes use semi-custom chips for peripheral functions (USB 3.0, temperature monitoring, etc.) and won't release specs to the FOSS community. The FOSS drivers do catch up eventually, but it means using a recent Asus motherboard is often a crapshoot with regards to Linux driver support. If this is how they deal with device drivers, I can't imagine them being particularly receptive to any requests to include Linux boot keys in the BIOS.
In any case, MS would probably claim that pre-installing Linux boot keys is a security hole, and convince the mobo makers not to do it.
Bad idea or not, it's a bit disingenuous to say that everyone lost $15 (per ounce turned in) to inflation. They only lost that $15 relative to the price of gold; retail prices for other goods and services didn't magically jump by 75% overnight. So by making that claim you're also making the implicit assumption that gold is the only true measure of value (a line of reasoning that I reject).
I don't see this accomplishing much though. If they're given to teachers for classroom use, most of the teachers aren't going to know what the fuck to do with them, and they'll sit forgotten at the back of desk drawers and supply cabinets for 20 years. If they're given directly to students, we'll see a flood of 14,950 of 'em hitting eBay before you can say "Hey, cool -- these are actually worth real money!" and "I don't know what happened to it, the dog must've dragged it off and buried it!"
The money to pay everyone who reaped enormous profits from this scheme -- those with inside information and/or influence, and to a lesser degree the derivatives traders who didn't have inside information, but profited from the resulting market volatility -- had to come from somewhere. It's essentially a hidden tax on everybody else, with the dishonest traders being the taxing authority!
Part of the problem is that many patents are so technical (or even intentionally obfuscated with technobabble), and there's so much potential prior art, that a patent examiner can't really be expected to sort things out properly. Maybe USPTO needs to have subject matter experts on retainer for all major technical fields, to assist the examiners.
Given that the original suit was also filed in '07, maybe the policy was actually a reaction to the situation Soverain created, rather than a standing policy that they applied to the situation when it arose?
Under the current system, a lot of people own patents on things they shouldn't have been allowed to patent in the first place. That's the crux of the issue. I've got no problem with people enforcing patents on things that are truly innovative. But too many patents these days are for concepts which already existed prior to the filing of the patent and/or are clearly obvious.
Their product listings are generally detailed and accurate enough that the restocking fee is largely irrelevant. As long as you do your homework, you will rarely (if ever) need to return anything for a refund. Over the past decade, between home and work, I've probably ordered upwards of $50K worth of computer hardware from them, and I have never paid a restocking fee.
As they say in financial services ads, "past performance is not indicative of future results". While they were once a powerhouse of technical innovation, Bell Labs' day in the sun has come and gone. They've been in decline for many years, and the bursting of the dot-com bubble (in which Lucent was heavily invested) pretty much finished them off.
I do agree, calling them a "patent troll" is a bit harsh though; at least they were great in the past, and produced (and continue to produce) actual products. But as far as current operations go, the best thing you can say about them is probably "Hey, they out-lasted Nortel!"
I don't think the judges will give a flying fuck about the colorful language. It was in an interview for a tech news site, not something he said under oath in a courtroom.
Slashdot Mirror
Intel NICs have (or at least had...) a very good reputation for performance and stability. Maybe this is a sign that their QA is starting to slip?
I think you've missed the point.
He never incorporated, so he's not a corporation. A sole proprietorship is a completely different sort of legal entity; the owner is personally responsible (and liable) for everything.
The "corporations are people" thing is a separate issue. The purpose of a corporation is to provide legal separation between the owner(s) and the company. But some corporate entities apparently want to have their cake and eat it too -- the legal protections they get by incorporating and the rights of a "person".
Irrelevant. The OP stated that it's a sole proprietorship, so from a legal standpoint he IS the company.
Even if we take the (rather far-fetched IMO) view that this patent is actually enforceable, how is the end user liable? Shouldn't responsibility for this be on the manufacturer of the access point and/or the controller chip contained therein?
Nit pick: He signed for the certified letter, so they already know he exists. They don't know if he's taking them seriously (yet).
I imagine you need to avoid the "low temp" stuff, otherwise the heat of the voltage regulators will soften it and cause it to drip off.
With that approach there is still a manual procedure to install the key into the list of things trusted by Secure Boot. This is by design (of Secure Boot), otherwise malware (e.g. a rootkit) could sign itself and add itself to the list. Seems to me what they're trying to avoid is requiring the user to manually install the key or dig through the BIOS to figure out how to disable Secure Boot.
Good luck with that. Asus (largest motherboard maker) isn't very Linux friendly. They sometimes use semi-custom chips for peripheral functions (USB 3.0, temperature monitoring, etc.) and won't release specs to the FOSS community. The FOSS drivers do catch up eventually, but it means using a recent Asus motherboard is often a crapshoot with regards to Linux driver support. If this is how they deal with device drivers, I can't imagine them being particularly receptive to any requests to include Linux boot keys in the BIOS.
In any case, MS would probably claim that pre-installing Linux boot keys is a security hole, and convince the mobo makers not to do it.
Some people have reported that a dab of hot glue on the coils will quiet them down. (Caveat: I have not personally tried this.)
Bad idea or not, it's a bit disingenuous to say that everyone lost $15 (per ounce turned in) to inflation. They only lost that $15 relative to the price of gold; retail prices for other goods and services didn't magically jump by 75% overnight. So by making that claim you're also making the implicit assumption that gold is the only true measure of value (a line of reasoning that I reject).
Seeing the state of public education in the US first-hand will do that to you. Is the UK any better?
I sincerely hope I am proven wrong, and that those 50 that don't end up on eBay do make a difference.
I don't see this accomplishing much though. If they're given to teachers for classroom use, most of the teachers aren't going to know what the fuck to do with them, and they'll sit forgotten at the back of desk drawers and supply cabinets for 20 years. If they're given directly to students, we'll see a flood of 14,950 of 'em hitting eBay before you can say "Hey, cool -- these are actually worth real money!" and "I don't know what happened to it, the dog must've dragged it off and buried it!"
Ahh, I see we have a Ron Paul fan.
That's true, to some extent. However...
The money to pay everyone who reaped enormous profits from this scheme -- those with inside information and/or influence, and to a lesser degree the derivatives traders who didn't have inside information, but profited from the resulting market volatility -- had to come from somewhere. It's essentially a hidden tax on everybody else, with the dishonest traders being the taxing authority!
People with money, power, and lax oversight behaving badly. Who could've seen that coming?
I said "most" specifically because of Amazon. There were a lot of other companies mentioned which have a large B&M presence.
Part of the problem is that many patents are so technical (or even intentionally obfuscated with technobabble), and there's so much potential prior art, that a patent examiner can't really be expected to sort things out properly. Maybe USPTO needs to have subject matter experts on retainer for all major technical fields, to assist the examiners.
Have you checked the settings on your humor detection meter lately?
Given that the original suit was also filed in '07, maybe the policy was actually a reaction to the situation Soverain created, rather than a standing policy that they applied to the situation when it arose?
Patents weren't granted until '98/'99, and Newegg was sued in '07. It's still an 8-year gap, but hey... get your facts straight.
Under the current system, a lot of people own patents on things they shouldn't have been allowed to patent in the first place. That's the crux of the issue. I've got no problem with people enforcing patents on things that are truly innovative. But too many patents these days are for concepts which already existed prior to the filing of the patent and/or are clearly obvious.
Their product listings are generally detailed and accurate enough that the restocking fee is largely irrelevant. As long as you do your homework, you will rarely (if ever) need to return anything for a refund. Over the past decade, between home and work, I've probably ordered upwards of $50K worth of computer hardware from them, and I have never paid a restocking fee.
As they say in financial services ads, "past performance is not indicative of future results". While they were once a powerhouse of technical innovation, Bell Labs' day in the sun has come and gone. They've been in decline for many years, and the bursting of the dot-com bubble (in which Lucent was heavily invested) pretty much finished them off.
I do agree, calling them a "patent troll" is a bit harsh though; at least they were great in the past, and produced (and continue to produce) actual products. But as far as current operations go, the best thing you can say about them is probably "Hey, they out-lasted Nortel!"
I don't think the judges will give a flying fuck about the colorful language. It was in an interview for a tech news site, not something he said under oath in a courtroom.