You may find it difficult to read the claims, because that's where the legalese is, but one of skill in the relevant arts should be able to decipher the specification. The specification is generally no different than any other technical paper on the subject. If you're trying to learn how to practice a patented invention, the claims are merely redundant to what is in the specification.
If you still truly can't figure out what is going on in the specification, you either aren't a person of skill in the relevant arts, or the specification should have been rejected at the PTO under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
+5 Informative? Have you ever heard of laches? I'm talking about equitable estoppel, as applied to litigation, not prosecution laches. Submarine patents as such no longer really exist in the United States since the TRIPs agreement. Submarine patents fall under the scope of prosecution laches, a delay in securing your rights to a patent. Failure to enforce a patent, however, can also have consequences if not done in a timely manner. You cannot sit back and watch someone build an empire from your patent without doing anything, bringing it to their attention, etc. and expect to cash in six or seven years down the road.
I swear, Slashdot should stick to technology and leave the legal commentary to people who know better.
Hey hey now, you also had to choose which three spells you wanted from the four spell selection per level. Granted, there was usually a fairly clear choice, but there was a choice dammit!:)
The judge CANNOT reasonably set damages at $1. The law guarantees that NTP will receive at minimum a "reasonable royalty". This is a MINIMUM. Reasonable royalties are calculated, in part, by figuring out what the two parties would have likely negotiated for. Remember, the patentee doesn't have to license the technology to anyone if they choose not to, so that property right can be worth quite a bit depending on market forces.
As for NTP having to pay RIM's legal fees, that would be downright impossible. NTP has not engaged in any form of inequitable conduct (if anything, RIM's been doing that, but even their practices, shameful as they are, don't rise to the level necessary to award NTP attorney's fees), and an award of legal fees are only to be used as an extraordinary remedy.
The Blackberry is a very useful device, but not everbody who makes a nifty product is "good." Like it or not, RIM's the bad guy here.
You don't need to look at the screen... just keep pushing up-down-up-down etc. at a steady clip. Oh, and aim for one of the walls (not sure which) to hit a warp.:)
IAAL, and I'm glad someone here has the common sense to realize that there is a potential cause of action for the suit against Google. Yes, you are correct, there is a tortious cause of action for interference with a contract.
No idea if the facts support the allegations, but that's what discovery is for.
For a Harvard law student, his idea of the EULA as the end-all as far as lawyers are concerned is flawed. In fact, courts recognize now more than ever that people who accept licenses DO NOT read them.
What does this mean? Yes, if you accepted the contract the court still imposes a "duty to read" upon you, but is still able to bar clauses which are unconscionable. You have rights under the UCC and common law.
I had an e-mail address I used primarily for signing up to services that I needed to get an e-mail back from (with an autogenerated password). This was hosted on a domain that I took offline for nearly two years. When I brought it up again and created an account for the old e-mail address, lo and behold, spam kept coming.
There's little to no incentive in purging spam mail lists.
I'm a part time law student (software engineer by day)... and we're not bad people. Remember, for every lawyer fighting against you, there's probably one fighting for you.
I think you'll find that courts agree with you as far as indecipherable unconscionable terms go. John Deere Leasing Co. v. Blubaugh, 636 F. Supp. 1569 (D. Kan., 1986).
Courts realize your relatively weak barganing power, but they do expect you to at least attempt to read the terms and conditions. You have a duty to read the contract, but in all negotiations there is always and underlying responsibility to bargain in good faith. If the EULA mentions spyware in some very vague way that wouldn't even tip off a computer professional, and the software installs a spyware program, you might very well have a case.
Don't be so harsh on the courts or the lawyers -- they understand the situation.
(Note: IANAL yet, but I play one in my classes after working as a software engineer in the day):)
Slashdot Mirror
You may find it difficult to read the claims, because that's where the legalese is, but one of skill in the relevant arts should be able to decipher the specification. The specification is generally no different than any other technical paper on the subject. If you're trying to learn how to practice a patented invention, the claims are merely redundant to what is in the specification.
If you still truly can't figure out what is going on in the specification, you either aren't a person of skill in the relevant arts, or the specification should have been rejected at the PTO under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
+5 Informative? Have you ever heard of laches? I'm talking about equitable estoppel, as applied to litigation, not prosecution laches. Submarine patents as such no longer really exist in the United States since the TRIPs agreement. Submarine patents fall under the scope of prosecution laches, a delay in securing your rights to a patent. Failure to enforce a patent, however, can also have consequences if not done in a timely manner. You cannot sit back and watch someone build an empire from your patent without doing anything, bringing it to their attention, etc. and expect to cash in six or seven years down the road.
I swear, Slashdot should stick to technology and leave the legal commentary to people who know better.
And you've added exactly what?
I forgot to point out that, in case you don't notice it, the following patent (of which the most recently issued is a continuation) is also included:
U.S. Patent No. 6,584,450 to Hastings, et al.
... should probably take the time to read the patents in controversy assigned to Netflix first.
They are:
US Patent No. 6,966,484 to Calonje, et al.; and
US Patent No. 7,024,381 to Hastings, et al.
As you do so, look at the claim language, not the specification, to find out what the invention actually covers. Discuss.
Hey hey now, you also had to choose which three spells you wanted from the four spell selection per level. Granted, there was usually a fairly clear choice, but there was a choice dammit! :)
If you're talking about a board game rather than a computer game, maybe you mean RoboRally?
The judge CANNOT reasonably set damages at $1. The law guarantees that NTP will receive at minimum a "reasonable royalty". This is a MINIMUM. Reasonable royalties are calculated, in part, by figuring out what the two parties would have likely negotiated for. Remember, the patentee doesn't have to license the technology to anyone if they choose not to, so that property right can be worth quite a bit depending on market forces.
As for NTP having to pay RIM's legal fees, that would be downright impossible. NTP has not engaged in any form of inequitable conduct (if anything, RIM's been doing that, but even their practices, shameful as they are, don't rise to the level necessary to award NTP attorney's fees), and an award of legal fees are only to be used as an extraordinary remedy.
The Blackberry is a very useful device, but not everbody who makes a nifty product is "good." Like it or not, RIM's the bad guy here.
Affected artists include Alicia Keys, Britney Spears, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club and Faithless.
What does that have to do with a story about DRM? We already know they're affected.
Fucking Vogons.
You don't need to look at the screen ... just keep pushing up-down-up-down etc. at a steady clip. Oh, and aim for one of the walls (not sure which) to hit a warp. :)
Battletoads was an awesome game!
IAAL, and I'm glad someone here has the common sense to realize that there is a potential cause of action for the suit against Google. Yes, you are correct, there is a tortious cause of action for interference with a contract.
No idea if the facts support the allegations, but that's what discovery is for.
Because by inducing him to breach his contract with Microsoft, Google is committing the tort of interference.
Richard Stallman might disagree with you.
I'll take "How to know you're on the right track" for $1000, Alex.
For a Harvard law student, his idea of the EULA as the end-all as far as lawyers are concerned is flawed. In fact, courts recognize now more than ever that people who accept licenses DO NOT read them.
What does this mean? Yes, if you accepted the contract the court still imposes a "duty to read" upon you, but is still able to bar clauses which are unconscionable. You have rights under the UCC and common law.
(1L at George Mason University School of Law)
Here's some more detail from Eugene Volokh:
The Volokh Conspiracy
You forgot to mention his appearance in a video game. He was in Toonstruck. :)
Dilbert 12/19/04
Thank God I didn't go to Harvard!! They bury their students and faculty on campus?
About the same time that lawyer gets laughed out of court for failing to understand causation.
I had an e-mail address I used primarily for signing up to services that I needed to get an e-mail back from (with an autogenerated password). This was hosted on a domain that I took offline for nearly two years. When I brought it up again and created an account for the old e-mail address, lo and behold, spam kept coming.
There's little to no incentive in purging spam mail lists.
I have a feeling we'll be seeing more of Ken soon... ... as the new host of Jeopardy.
I'm a part time law student (software engineer by day)... and we're not bad people. Remember, for every lawyer fighting against you, there's probably one fighting for you.
I think you'll find that courts agree with you as far as indecipherable unconscionable terms go. John Deere Leasing Co. v. Blubaugh, 636 F. Supp. 1569 (D. Kan., 1986).
:)
Courts realize your relatively weak barganing power, but they do expect you to at least attempt to read the terms and conditions. You have a duty to read the contract, but in all negotiations there is always and underlying responsibility to bargain in good faith. If the EULA mentions spyware in some very vague way that wouldn't even tip off a computer professional, and the software installs a spyware program, you might very well have a case.
Don't be so harsh on the courts or the lawyers -- they understand the situation.
(Note: IANAL yet, but I play one in my classes after working as a software engineer in the day)
Hah... luxury! I run GEOS by counting on my fingers.