It's tough to find a judge that 1. is familiar with patent cases and 2. does not cringe with disgust when s/he sees your patent complaint. A lot of judges hate them and do them incorrectly. Yes, the Texas court is pro-patent-plaintiff but if you owned a patent and wanted to sue over it, you can be damn sure you'd want a judge who knows what he's doing.
If Google has even 1 customer there, they can be held to jurisdiction there. I think I'll take the bet that someone there has given Google money in one way or another.
Except Uni's are completely free to ignore everyone else's patents in the course of their research
No. The experimental use exception is very small in the U.S. Universities are not allowed to just use anyone's patented process/thing. You say "Uni" though so I am thinking you aren't in the U.S.
It is very rare to find a law firm to take a patent case on a contingency basis. The cases take an enormous amount of time and resources and are too risky for contingencies.
"They're paying you to come up with cool, neat, innovative tech."
Ok I agree with you but these companies should have a royalty program in place for its inventors. Otherwise there is simply no incentive to disclose inventions to the employer. I think IBM has a program like that. Any company that doesn't though is just ripping off its employees. If this guy's contract has a royalty provision then it might not be that bad really cause the company would pay for the patent process and if they do end up making a bunch of money off the invention then he gets a nice bonus. But like someone above said, we can't determine that without seeing the entire agreement.
"As for the 6 months bit, it's not like you can get a patent in under 3 years.. "
It says "invention" not "patent." Thus, it would apply to any patents granted later on said inventions even if it took 3 years to get that patent on the invention that you conceived within those 6 months.
This is very simplistic thinking. The fact is that Toshiba paid Paramount a lot of money to drop Blu-Ray support.
Are you suggesting there is something wrong with that? Paying for exclusive contracts is a normal business practice. Nothing unethical about it.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with your ability to buy a faster service from your ISP. It has to do with not allowing providers to prevent you from accessing certain sites or protocols.
Anyone else think it's funny that this news of the appeal comes on the same day that Congress bashed Yahoo for giving in to China's laws against free speech? (Not that the appeal wasn't expected though)
So Reiser's best friend had sex with Reiser's wife, confessed to the cops that he is a serial killer, but conveniently says he didn't kill Nina...and yet the cops don't arrest him. Sounds like we got the smart ones on that force.
Halon use is outlawed, at least in some countries since it has a bad effect on the ozone layer. Carbon Dioxide is almost as good, and has the same effect.
Hmm, the last company I worked at had a halon system in the data storage/backup room for fire protection. This was in Florida about 2 years ago. Obviously no federal law outlawing it in the US.
The "making available" argument comes from one case in the 4th Circuit that applied the theory against a library that made unlawful copies of a piece of art available. Most who are familiar with the case believe it was supposed to be limited to libraries only. It was really a stretch to find liability. The copyright statute says:
"(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;" 17 USC 106
Nothing in the statute says anything about "making available" to the public. In fact, in that same opinion, the court said "In order to establish 'distribution' of a copyrighted work, a party must show that an unlawful copy was disseminated 'to the public'" Even after saying that, it went ahead and made the library liable for infringement because they had no record keeping in place and therefore could not prove if the work had or had not been checked out. There was no proof showing that it had been checked out or seen by the public. It'll be nice to have another appeals court look at this issue. It would be even nicer to have them read the statute correctly and require proof of distribution.
and by the way, it's "plaintiff," not "prosecution." Copyright infringement isn't a crime.
Truth is a defense to a defamation claim in the U.S. so if they are actually homosexual then there would be no defamation claim because the statements were true.
Slashdot Mirror
This is /. dude. Anyone who even thinks of even applying for a patent is automatically a patent troll. You must be new here.
It's tough to find a judge that 1. is familiar with patent cases and 2. does not cringe with disgust when s/he sees your patent complaint. A lot of judges hate them and do them incorrectly. Yes, the Texas court is pro-patent-plaintiff but if you owned a patent and wanted to sue over it, you can be damn sure you'd want a judge who knows what he's doing.
If Google has even 1 customer there, they can be held to jurisdiction there. I think I'll take the bet that someone there has given Google money in one way or another.
Except Uni's are completely free to ignore everyone else's patents in the course of their research
No. The experimental use exception is very small in the U.S. Universities are not allowed to just use anyone's patented process/thing. You say "Uni" though so I am thinking you aren't in the U.S.
It is very rare to find a law firm to take a patent case on a contingency basis. The cases take an enormous amount of time and resources and are too risky for contingencies.
Just work. There's a very slim chance that they will sue and and even slimmer chance that it would be enforceable.
Seeing as how the 9th Circuit Court is federal, it was probably interpreting California law and California case law when it made that decision.
"They're paying you to come up with cool, neat, innovative tech."
Ok I agree with you but these companies should have a royalty program in place for its inventors. Otherwise there is simply no incentive to disclose inventions to the employer. I think IBM has a program like that. Any company that doesn't though is just ripping off its employees. If this guy's contract has a royalty provision then it might not be that bad really cause the company would pay for the patent process and if they do end up making a bunch of money off the invention then he gets a nice bonus. But like someone above said, we can't determine that without seeing the entire agreement.
"As for the 6 months bit, it's not like you can get a patent in under 3 years.. "
It says "invention" not "patent." Thus, it would apply to any patents granted later on said inventions even if it took 3 years to get that patent on the invention that you conceived within those 6 months.
So if the Chinese government is willing to do this with just hard drives, it makes me wonder what they are putting on Lenovos.
whoever modded you troll is an idiot
I bought one last Friday. $99 at wal-mart
Are you suggesting there is something wrong with that? Paying for exclusive contracts is a normal business practice. Nothing unethical about it.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with your ability to buy a faster service from your ISP. It has to do with not allowing providers to prevent you from accessing certain sites or protocols.
Anyone else think it's funny that this news of the appeal comes on the same day that Congress bashed Yahoo for giving in to China's laws against free speech? (Not that the appeal wasn't expected though)
At least they had a body in the Peterson case.
So Reiser's best friend had sex with Reiser's wife, confessed to the cops that he is a serial killer, but conveniently says he didn't kill Nina...and yet the cops don't arrest him. Sounds like we got the smart ones on that force.
Halon use is outlawed, at least in some countries since it has a bad effect on the ozone layer. Carbon Dioxide is almost as good, and has the same effect.
Hmm, the last company I worked at had a halon system in the data storage/backup room for fire protection. This was in Florida about 2 years ago. Obviously no federal law outlawing it in the US.
The "making available" argument comes from one case in the 4th Circuit that applied the theory against a library that made unlawful copies of a piece of art available. Most who are familiar with the case believe it was supposed to be limited to libraries only. It was really a stretch to find liability. The copyright statute says:
"(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"
17 USC 106
Nothing in the statute says anything about "making available" to the public. In fact, in that same opinion, the court said "In order to establish 'distribution' of a copyrighted work, a party must show that an unlawful copy was disseminated 'to the public'" Even after saying that, it went ahead and made the library liable for infringement because they had no record keeping in place and therefore could not prove if the work had or had not been checked out. There was no proof showing that it had been checked out or seen by the public. It'll be nice to have another appeals court look at this issue. It would be even nicer to have them read the statute correctly and require proof of distribution.
and by the way, it's "plaintiff," not "prosecution." Copyright infringement isn't a crime.
Truth is a defense to a defamation claim in the U.S. so if they are actually homosexual then there would be no defamation claim because the statements were true.
depends on the contract
I tried it and it sends me back to the old one.
DirecPath? What a horrible company that is.
Why is your place not affected by the ruling? I RTFA but must have missed something...
If a judge finds a jury's decision to be completely against the facts, he may reverse it. But this is pretty rare I believe.