There is one big fat glaring disagreement between Sakic and Connelly that should make most of this pretty plain.
Sakic claims there was no contract. Connelly says there was.
My one semester of business law clearly makes me an expert, so here goes:
I suspect there was a contract. I suspect it said what Connelly said it does. My understanding is that in these kind of legal proceedings there has to be some "consideration", i.e, money or value changing hands. Sakic was paid to do a job. Then he gave away the results of that job, effectively removing any competitive value the task brought to connelly.
And let's face it, anybody who has ever written code (and then accidently deleted it) knows that it's real easy to write the same code the second time around.
Connelly, in my view, has a valid claim against Sakic since Connelly paid for the time Sakic took to complete the task and got very little value in return.
I don't see Connelly getting a lot of mileage (other than press) by threatening other mambo users. If the function is that simple, somebody other than Sakic should rewrite it (if someone hasn't already).
The problem is that just about anybody can think up a good idea - the real challenge is figuring out a way to make money on it.
Most of us don't bother with implementing our ideas because of the time/money resources involved - buuuuut, if you have a intellectual property lawyer on the payroll, you can stake your claim now and not worry about how to make money on it until you're ready. (or you just make money off the patent by extorting the people who do figure out the business end)
I think this application is probably intended for military command and control. For example, a tank commander that could get HQ instructions/radar info/enemy mapping, etc.
Don't know why anybody would be surprised. The patent system is absurd and the concept of obviousness is a concept the USPTO doesn't seem to grasp.
Corporate counsels are recommending that their companies attempt to patent everything they can think of. Like it or not it makes good business sense if your company can afford to do it.
Note that 60% (or so) of granted patents don't withstand serious challenges. Of course, they can still be used to threaten competitors.
Your best bet is to never check to see if the code is covered by a patent. If the patent holder can prove that you knowingly infringed on a patent you can be fined 3X punitive damages. If you don't knowingly infringe then the penalty is much less severe.
The good news, I guess, is that most patents (I think I read 60%+) do not hold up at all when challenged.
Slashdot Mirror
you must be still living at home or getting paid in raisins and peanut butter.
we are all businessmen bubba. we all give society product for pay.
now, lawyers on the other hand...
There is one big fat glaring disagreement between Sakic and Connelly that should make most of this pretty plain.
Sakic claims there was no contract. Connelly says there was.
My one semester of business law clearly makes me an expert, so here goes:
I suspect there was a contract. I suspect it said what Connelly said it does. My understanding is that in these kind of legal proceedings there has to be some "consideration", i.e, money or value changing hands. Sakic was paid to do a job. Then he gave away the results of that job, effectively removing any competitive value the task brought to connelly.
And let's face it, anybody who has ever written code (and then accidently deleted it) knows that it's real easy to write the same code the second time around.
Connelly, in my view, has a valid claim against Sakic since Connelly paid for the time Sakic took to complete the task and got very little value in return.
I don't see Connelly getting a lot of mileage (other than press) by threatening other mambo users. If the function is that simple, somebody other than Sakic should rewrite it (if someone hasn't already).
Well there you have it. Commercial space flights are late leaving the gate too...
The problem I have with your assertion is the following situation.
In January 2000 I think of a neat idea. I start working on implementation.
In February 2000, you think of the same idea. You file a patent on the idea.
In March 2000 you move on to something else after concluding the idea is unmarketable at this time.
In June 2002 I release my implementation and spend money to market it. Its successful. It makes money. I'm the toast of the technology community.
In August 2002 you see all the press I'm generating and say, "Hey! That's my idea!" and file a lawsuit.
In this case, you've created nothing, but only I have created "value".
The problem is that just about anybody can think up a good idea - the real challenge is figuring out a way to make money on it.
Most of us don't bother with implementing our ideas because of the time/money resources involved - buuuuut, if you have a intellectual property lawyer on the payroll, you can stake your claim now and not worry about how to make money on it until you're ready. (or you just make money off the patent by extorting the people who do figure out the business end)
I've written to my senator once and I've covered it a twice in the last few months in my blog. Satisfied? What have you done?
I think this application is probably intended for military command and control. For example, a tank commander that could get HQ instructions/radar info/enemy mapping, etc.
Don't know why anybody would be surprised. The patent system is absurd and the concept of obviousness is a concept the USPTO doesn't seem to grasp.
Corporate counsels are recommending that their companies attempt to patent everything they can think of. Like it or not it makes good business sense if your company can afford to do it.
Note that 60% (or so) of granted patents don't withstand serious challenges. Of course, they can still be used to threaten competitors.
Your best bet is to never check to see if the code is covered by a patent. If the patent holder can prove that you knowingly infringed on a patent you can be fined 3X punitive damages. If you don't knowingly infringe then the penalty is much less severe. The good news, I guess, is that most patents (I think I read 60%+) do not hold up at all when challenged.
Since GATT, patents how have 20 years. All current patents, even filed before GATT, were extended to 20.