Only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. Not us and definitely not the Executive branch. The federal government can do only what the Constitution allows it to do. That power is quite limited. Any other powers are left to the states.
Instead of a band of 13 somewhat diverse colonies where people felt some allegiance just to their neighbours instead of the whole country, we now have national media and increasing cultural homogeny (Red/Blue state issues aside). We might as well reflect that in government. That would require amending the U.S. Constitution. I don't see that happening any time soon.
But perhaps there should be a time limit on how long the patent holder has to sue, after a product is openly known to use a patented technology. This does exist. It's called the doctrine of laches and estoppel. If you know someone is infringing your patent and you either refuse to sue or lead them on to believe that you won't sue, you can be barred from suing. You can rebut this though if you show that you had no money and couldn't sue or you were negotiating with them during the entire time.
Doesn't that bring us back to the question of "why?" ?? It has already been demonstrated numerous times that the biometric IDs can be stolen with ease.
I think Sequoia is completely within their rights to prevent anyone from examining their voting machines, since they are protected by trade secrets. If someone can find out your trade secrets through simple reverse engineering techniques, the information loses its trade secret status. Reverse-engineering is a full defense to a claim of trade secret misappropriation.
You need to show prior art preferably enough prior art examples to cover all of Akamai's claims. Actually each claim is required to be nonobvious by itself. You can invalidate single claims by showing prior art for them. And nonobviousness is 35 U.S.C. 103.
I thought the same thing as you at first. If you read this it looks like he was served the complaint and added as a defendant. Subpoenas are usually served to someone to produce documents or to show up in court. This looks to me though like they added him as a defendant.
How can hand motions be patented. I can see the actual teach being patented but not the motions. I haven't read the patent but I'm sure it involves the patenting of the method accepting those motions as inputs and then doing something after receiving that input. I highly doubt it would be a patent on the motion itself. If it is on the motion itself, the only person Apple could sue for infringement would be the consumer. Good luck with that. Damages = $0.
True but without class actions are really the only way to punish companies when it would be way too costly for a single person to go after them. I consider class actions to be necessary evils.
No, that's very much against federal law. Interesting. I have friends at USC School of Business and they did a class trip to Cuba. I was under the impression that it was sponsored by the school. Maybe it wasn't.
If a reasonable person knows or should have known their patent or copyright was being infringed on and takes
no action within say 3 years, their patent or copyright becomes null and void. This already exists. The two doctrines are called laches and estoppel. Without going into the details, they both encompass the general idea that you are talking about. They can be negated by failing license negotiations or lack of knowledge of infringement.
This company seems interesting to me. After viewing their biographies and the "Working With Rembrandt" page, it sound like a law firm that is willing to work on a contingency basis:
If your patent or portfolio of patents is being infringed, Rembrandts stands ready to pursue the infringement and allow you to see the real value of your invention. Our process is comprehensive. There is no fee to patent holders. Simply:
1. Click here to notify one of our market analysts of the nature of the infringement, info@RembrandtIP.com or call us at 888-736-4947.
2. Once you notify us, we will immediately issue you a non-disclosure so that we can begin to collaborate with regard to the nature of the infringement.
3. After review, we will notify you of our opinion regarding your patent and the implications of the infringement. All patents are reviewed by Rembrandt's executive staff, headed by the company's Chief Executive Officer Paul B. Schneck, Ph.D.
4. If your patent is accepted, we will work with you to acquire the patent and structure the terms of the deal.
5. Once acquired, Rembrandt's in-house staff and outside consultants go to work building, strengthening, articulating and focusing the claim. 6. Throughout the procedure, Rembrandt collaborates closely with inventors to keep them apprised of the process. 7. Rembrandt invests its own capital to retain non-contingency legal support in order to pursue patent pirates and deliver the value of an invention to an inventor.
8. Rembrandt attorneys bring litigation against patent pirates and support the claim through litigation including possible appeals.
9. Awards and settlements are shared with the inventor, Rembrandts investors and the Rembrandt charity. This is interesting to me as a law student because I once worked on a case where the other side's attorney took payment by obtaining partial rights in the patent. I was told by the lawyers in my firm that that is a very sketchy thing to do and it borders on being against ethics rules that lawyers have to follow. It almost looks to me like these guys are trying to hide their attorney status so they can slide by the ethics rules.
Yes, it's a crime, but it's definitely not theft. It is very rare for copyright infringement to rise to criminal levels. The music download/upload situation is not one of those rare cases.
Slashdot Mirror
Only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. Not us and definitely not the Executive branch. The federal government can do only what the Constitution allows it to do. That power is quite limited. Any other powers are left to the states.
When Obama talks about "change," he is referring to what will be left in your bank account. His tax proposals are quite extreme.
I think a better example would be Audi owners.
I'm not entirely against biometric IDs; I just think its benefit doesn't outweigh the cost.
Doesn't that bring us back to the question of "why?" ?? It has already been demonstrated numerous times that the biometric IDs can be stolen with ease.
Can't even take the 10 seconds to read the summary? It's a patent APPLICATION. It has NOT issued yet.
Have you tried right clicking? It crashes on me every single time I right click on a page.
The prior art has to be dated at least one year prior to the "priority date" which in most cases is the application filing date.
I thought the same thing as you at first. If you read this it looks like he was served the complaint and added as a defendant. Subpoenas are usually served to someone to produce documents or to show up in court. This looks to me though like they added him as a defendant.
True but without class actions are really the only way to punish companies when it would be way too costly for a single person to go after them. I consider class actions to be necessary evils.
Can't you legally visit Cuba by flying through Mexico? I have friends who have done this.
1. Click here to notify one of our market analysts of the nature of the infringement, info@RembrandtIP.com or call us at 888-736-4947.
2. Once you notify us, we will immediately issue you a non-disclosure so that we can begin to collaborate with regard to the nature of the infringement.
3. After review, we will notify you of our opinion regarding your patent and the implications of the infringement. All patents are reviewed by Rembrandt's executive staff, headed by the company's Chief Executive Officer Paul B. Schneck, Ph.D.
4. If your patent is accepted, we will work with you to acquire the patent and structure the terms of the deal.
5. Once acquired, Rembrandt's in-house staff and outside consultants go to work building, strengthening, articulating and focusing the claim.
6. Throughout the procedure, Rembrandt collaborates closely with inventors to keep them apprised of the process.
7. Rembrandt invests its own capital to retain non-contingency legal support in order to pursue patent pirates and deliver the value of an invention to an inventor.
8. Rembrandt attorneys bring litigation against patent pirates and support the claim through litigation including possible appeals.
9. Awards and settlements are shared with the inventor, Rembrandts investors and the Rembrandt charity. This is interesting to me as a law student because I once worked on a case where the other side's attorney took payment by obtaining partial rights in the patent. I was told by the lawyers in my firm that that is a very sketchy thing to do and it borders on being against ethics rules that lawyers have to follow. It almost looks to me like these guys are trying to hide their attorney status so they can slide by the ethics rules.
Usually when you give away something you no longer have that thing. Tor isn't "giving away" anything. It is giving copies of its ebooks.
Many cities in the U.S. do this. Two that come to mind are Tallahassee, FL and Cleveland, OH.