There's a world of difference between software having a digital signature and the software installer actually checking the digital signature. Does Windows even have a mechanism to check the signature?
There's nothing wrong with using a common name as a trademark within reason. Sky have obviously used a common name for their company, but it's ridiculous for Microsoft to come along and try to sell a competing product that uses Sky in the title. "Apple" is a common word, but it would be ludicrous for Microsoft to start selling an AppleCall phone. There's a reason that the courts have sided with Sky.
Look, if it's not science, then it shouldn't be taught in a science class. It's that simple.
By the way, atheists don't care what other people believe as long as they keep it to themselves. Atheism doesn't have to be taught and it is NOT a religious worldview.
I think Sky have a very reasonable case with this as they provide broadband and cloud email and storage in the UK, so Microsoft is pushing a product that can be directly confused with Sky's products.
I'd lose sleep if tobacco and/or alcohol were banned. Imagine how much organised crime would benefit from banning those two - It'd be like prohibition all over again.
I didn't realise that you can refuse to answer certain questions in court; I thought they'd do you for contempt. However, if silence can be inferred as guilt, then there's not a huge benefit in remaining silent (except to the police - don't help them to prosecute you).
I don't get your hatred of Makers (as long as they don't bust into your workshop and enthusiastically destroy your tools), can't you just avoid them?
Sometimes, people "playing" with new materials/techniques actually make big breakthroughs. I doubt that Pierre and Marie Curie would have discovered so much about radioactivity if they had to go through all of your red tape. Conversely, they may have lived longer, but how are we supposed to learn these things without experience?
If someone is prepared to take the risk of performing home surgery (maybe they can't afford professional care), then I don't see why they should be criminalised for doing so. Yes, some people will make mistakes, but the sooner people learn about the mistakes, the better.
I doubt they'd be successful unless the manufacturer guaranteed liability. If you choose to buy and use a product that infringes on a patent, then that's your own problem. (Yes, patents are figuratively insane).
Okay, so you're allowed to sell the patent, but not enforce it if you don't build/sell the invention. That could be a problem when an inventor tries to sell it. The inventor has already made the information in the patent public (by patenting it), but is unable to sue for infringement, so any company can now use that patent for free unless one of the energy companies decides to buy it (for a rock-bottom price) in order to stop the other companies using it.
It's quite feasible to come up with an idea for something that you don't have the resources or skillset to build (and sell). I'm not a fan of patents, but the idea is to enable that kind of knowledge to be licensed to people who can build (and sell) the invention. Without patents, the theory goes, inventions can die with the inventor. With patents, it can be in the inventors interest to share the invention with other people.
Yes, obvious is a vague term and that's part of the problem. Maybe you could get 100 average people in a room and ask them how they would solve a particular problem. If more than 2 of them come up with something almost the same as the patent, then it's obvious and not worthy of being a patent.
I agree, but it's not really double-dipping as company Y should have paid for licenses for its customers as well or provided indemnity for them. I don't agree with the principle, but patents can be licensed for end-users as well as manufacturers.
As much as I dislike patent trolls, I think they've got a point with this. Where do you draw the line between patent trolls and other patent holders? This company has a patent (which hasn't been challenged in court yet and so is "valid") and believes that companies are infringing this patent.
It seems that the FTC is assuming that they are a troll, but what evidence do they have? It does seem as though the FTC is targeting this company unfairly in that they haven't targeted other patent trolls.
I'd like a system whereby the patent issuing authority should bare the costs of any over-turned patents. That way if you're the target of an obvious patent that hasn't been challenged, you can defend yourself free of charge. It would also create an incentive for the patent office to not give out obvious patents.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a world of difference between software having a digital signature and the software installer actually checking the digital signature. Does Windows even have a mechanism to check the signature?
Fair point, but is it included in Windows?
There's nothing wrong with using a common name as a trademark within reason. Sky have obviously used a common name for their company, but it's ridiculous for Microsoft to come along and try to sell a competing product that uses Sky in the title. "Apple" is a common word, but it would be ludicrous for Microsoft to start selling an AppleCall phone. There's a reason that the courts have sided with Sky.
When I first heard about that, I thought someone was making it up.
Unbelievable!
Look, if it's not science, then it shouldn't be taught in a science class. It's that simple.
By the way, atheists don't care what other people believe as long as they keep it to themselves. Atheism doesn't have to be taught and it is NOT a religious worldview.
Congratulations, you just won the internet.
I think Sky have a very reasonable case with this as they provide broadband and cloud email and storage in the UK, so Microsoft is pushing a product that can be directly confused with Sky's products.
I can't believe Queensland has allowed that law to stand - shocking.
That sounds ludicrous - have you got a link to that librarian story?
I'd lose sleep if tobacco and/or alcohol were banned. Imagine how much organised crime would benefit from banning those two - It'd be like prohibition all over again.
I get that sometimes whilst racing in GT6 - usually just after I've very badly lost control.
I didn't realise that you can refuse to answer certain questions in court; I thought they'd do you for contempt. However, if silence can be inferred as guilt, then there's not a huge benefit in remaining silent (except to the police - don't help them to prosecute you).
Yes, but it's unlikely that you'll be able to prove that, so they'll throw you in prison for failing to divulge the password. Sucks, doesn't it?
I don't get your hatred of Makers (as long as they don't bust into your workshop and enthusiastically destroy your tools), can't you just avoid them?
Sometimes, people "playing" with new materials/techniques actually make big breakthroughs. I doubt that Pierre and Marie Curie would have discovered so much about radioactivity if they had to go through all of your red tape. Conversely, they may have lived longer, but how are we supposed to learn these things without experience?
If someone is prepared to take the risk of performing home surgery (maybe they can't afford professional care), then I don't see why they should be criminalised for doing so. Yes, some people will make mistakes, but the sooner people learn about the mistakes, the better.
Yes, we can choose to not testify in court. However, once you turn up at court to testify, you cannot then refuse to answer some questions.
It's difficult to sue non-US companies for manufacturing LEDs outside of the US that infringe on US patents.
I doubt they'd be successful unless the manufacturer guaranteed liability. If you choose to buy and use a product that infringes on a patent, then that's your own problem. (Yes, patents are figuratively insane).
Okay, so you're allowed to sell the patent, but not enforce it if you don't build/sell the invention. That could be a problem when an inventor tries to sell it. The inventor has already made the information in the patent public (by patenting it), but is unable to sue for infringement, so any company can now use that patent for free unless one of the energy companies decides to buy it (for a rock-bottom price) in order to stop the other companies using it.
How would you prove that the specified detritus came from the specified car?
It's quite feasible to come up with an idea for something that you don't have the resources or skillset to build (and sell). I'm not a fan of patents, but the idea is to enable that kind of knowledge to be licensed to people who can build (and sell) the invention. Without patents, the theory goes, inventions can die with the inventor. With patents, it can be in the inventors interest to share the invention with other people.
Yes, that wouldn't be extortion. However, it's not common for hundreds of people to damage your car, so it's not the best example.
Yes, obvious is a vague term and that's part of the problem. Maybe you could get 100 average people in a room and ask them how they would solve a particular problem. If more than 2 of them come up with something almost the same as the patent, then it's obvious and not worthy of being a patent.
I agree, but it's not really double-dipping as company Y should have paid for licenses for its customers as well or provided indemnity for them. I don't agree with the principle, but patents can be licensed for end-users as well as manufacturers.
I don't see how a lawyer could argue that it was obvious to the company that the patent was trivial and yet not obvious to the patent office.
As much as I dislike patent trolls, I think they've got a point with this. Where do you draw the line between patent trolls and other patent holders? This company has a patent (which hasn't been challenged in court yet and so is "valid") and believes that companies are infringing this patent.
It seems that the FTC is assuming that they are a troll, but what evidence do they have? It does seem as though the FTC is targeting this company unfairly in that they haven't targeted other patent trolls.
I'd like a system whereby the patent issuing authority should bare the costs of any over-turned patents. That way if you're the target of an obvious patent that hasn't been challenged, you can defend yourself free of charge. It would also create an incentive for the patent office to not give out obvious patents.