>>So RIM throws lots and lots of dollars at Washington lobbyists to pressure congressmen, who pressure the Patent Office.
>*Good*. This is the one point where I *definitely* agree with RIM. Eliminating software patents would be an incredibly good thing for the tech industry.
Then you must clearly be opposed. If you think using legislators to prove that your technology didn't infringe instead of using the courts is a good idea then you must be drunk with passion about the "patent troll" argument. Really. I agree that we must squash patent trolls, but check your target and for pete's sake, do not condone political pressure in a technology dispute! That's outright criminal behavior!
Glad to hear some reason on this site! It's amazing how RIM has "won" over the techie geek masses so easily. There's a lesson there more than just the large amount of money they've used for lawyers and bribery... uh... er... I mean "lobbying". I would think and still think that if people look at the actual abysmal behavior of RIM, even the blind geek masses would see the light. If the 15 second commercial-drunk masses are converted to believe that the most media apparent argument (hence big money) is the more correct one, then there is a serious danger to real innovation/achievement in this country.
Cheers!
Thomas Campana developed the email wireless technique in middle 90's at that time this was novel. Later he got involved in NTP to license his patent to others. NTP, the US firm, informs the Canadian firm, RIM, that they may be infringing in the United States with the clear patent holder. RIM ignores NTP. RIM gives US legislators Blackberrys. RIM fails to defend its technology in court and judgement goes to the inventor who is cofounder of NTP, i.e. this is not a zombie company. But knowing the process takes forever and that this is a big company (=money) versus small outfit (=almost no money, just an idea), RIM tries to wear them out in a legal endurance test that clearly doesn't relate to the idea of good idea brought to market to help a good society. Throw idealism out the window. This is about money and power. Hell this has made the international wires. RIM is gambling that instead of licensing the technology which they are clearly borrowing, that they can convince people that somehow they developed the idea first and you know what... that doesn't matter. With time, people stop caring , that's where the money and lawyers pay off for the big company.
Oh yeah and "software workaround" well, you might as well say, "US Patent Law Workaround." That's what they're saying to their users.
In the end, this could spell doom for the US electronics/software industry. Startups, unless supremely well funded, will be only minor legal obstacles to big companies. Does this lead to innovation? No it leads to the Detroit 3 crushing competitors and taking down the US economy at the same time.
You may not have been involved in the patent process to understand this, but I'll try and pursuade you by saying, producing a new product just doesn't happen that fast. It took TI >10 years to invent the digital light projection (DLP) technology.
Also, it's up to the patent holder to determine what s/he wants to do with it. Sometimes you may not want to build the manufacturing, just license it to someone else who already has the manufacturing capability. That's been done here, others have licensed the technology, just RIM thinks that US Patent Law doesn't matter.
Good question. But as a quick aside to the main point of post, the time frame question is often key. NTP is a licensing company that formed around the inventor. It took Texas Instruments a decade to develop the Digital Light Projection technology found in those flat screen Tvs and the Infocus projectors. We need to allow time for great ideas to be developed.
One way for individual inventors to get around the necessary manufacturing infrastructure is to simply license it. This helps the system because a big dog like, for example, Hitachi could choose a small electronics company's patent and produce it easily and competitively by licensing. This model of small outfits licensing allows for more innovation in general because innovation is not consolidated into an oligarchy of big companies.
So the inventor doesn't count eh? I understand the outrage at Zombie companies (which in my mind doesn't involve the inventor), but again this "witch hunt" mentality has got to stop. Especially if supposedly this website draws the "nerds" or the technically-minded. The mentality goes on to suggest drastic changes are needed to US Patent Law to stop Zombies and all I've heard are suggestions that make it way easier for big companies to squash small companies. Now that just hurts the American economy by focusing all research in big companies... which means less innovation not more, because there are less innovation sites in the American system. I understand your opinion to "go get em!" but check your target--Let's not hurt the inventors, they got us our cushy jobs to begin with.
Though interesting news occurance, it's unrelated to the NTP Vs. RIM. The NTP Vs. RIM case is only a US distribution of a contested technology. But on the other hand, thinking about international patent rights, it's interesting that a Canadian firm would seek to overwhelm a small US patent holder by legal wrangling and political maneuvering.
Don't lose hope. Some of us have worked for small companies where patents do matter and we do need to defend our investment of capital in IP. Somehow the "patents suck" popular drug didn't get the additional warning label, "Warning, may allow large conglomerates to crush inventive small companies simply by their economic clout."
Ahh, but it reveals the truth about the situation. Money and power matter, a small company that invented something does not.
Plus, everyone has been fooled into thinking RIM originated the idea. Gee, and they have money... and power.
Basically, if you rip off/duplicate a patent holder's idea... public consensus is that this is ok as long as the ripoff if cool... like the Blackberry. Who cares about the political shenanigans, the flouting of US Patent law, if the item is cool that's... cool. Right?
Oh yeah, and Patent Law must suck. It sucks right? Somebody tell me how to think because obviously this case is a zombie case, right? And... and... zombies are bad right? They're all undead and s***. Must be bad.:P
Disclaimer: I don't know the details about RTwhatever, so let's assume the reporting about this issue is unbiased and that they are indeed innovation parasites. If that case were true,I don't think it's time to go bashing all of patent law. Clearly, some nonsense patents should be blocked from approval or rather (as is current practice) not enforced when a legal challenge arises. But I have a hard time arguing against a temporary patent monopoly in a capitalist society.
I say that because your arguments feed the domination by big corporations. He who has the biggest factory will produce the cheapest commodity. If you invent something new and cool, guess what, there are already corporations who can build it cheaper than you can. So the inventor has another idea? Well you're up shit creek now, because no investor will touch you. You didn't make money on your first invention. You were undersold by a big company.
Hell, big companies already undersell smaller competitors to destroy their profits and make them burn up their intitial seed money.
Personally, I think that scenario stinks if it is a general rule. There has to be room for the small time inventor. Otherwise our "innovation" will be quite slow because it will be too hard for small companies to compete with megacorps. And megacorps often only see manufacturing as money which means stagnation in innovation. Ever hear, "You can have any color of car you want, as long as its black."? That's a large company (early Ford) talking right there. They could easily outmuscle competitors and for a time, innovation slowed. They were the big dog. Luckily, competition was protected somewhat and challengers came out with more options and better cars. Which saved Ford from itself. Ford innovated like crazy to compete as well. And there you have capitalism working at its best. Profit from competition ecourages innovative thinking means more rapid technological development. Just don't let consolidation of power occur or else the wheels of technology will start to slow down.
I hear your pessism about the current situation, which has a strong tinge of ignorance to it, but what would you suggest?
I agree that we should kill patent zombie behavior, but let's be careful. It took Texas Instruments more than 10 years to develop DLP (MEMS digital light projection) technology. Sometimes it takes a while to physically realize a patent design. Also, so what if an inventor wants to just license patents? I think we should allow for the small time inventor in his/her shop to just tinker away. Sometimes the crackpots do great things for society. Finally, the onus is still on a company going into production to do a prior art search.
We should wait for the end to discover why that was turned down. There's good dirt here. I'll bet something lies under the surface statements of both companies and recent events.
I agree about the settling. Keep that in mind though, when this whole thing ends. I'm sure we'll find out more details on early negotiations once one of the sides loses.
By the way, NTP did prove that RIM infringed on its patents, so they fulfilled your second thought. Somehow, they've decided to "revisit" the decision and raise it to possible supreme court candidacy. Very interesting. I'm sure there's room in here for some great investigative reporting.
I'd like the issue to be that easy where we could just apply a label to it and condemn it, but unfortunately it's not. The technology was invented in the US by an engineer who wasn't attached to big money. His patent is a threat to RIM and I feel they may win because they simply have a huge amount of money behind them. They are not simply beating out competition with better technology because they have duplicated a prior art. They are using previously invented technology with more funding to get around the inventor.
People should review RIM's behavior during this long struggle before being so glib as to equate NTP's patents to patents for a breast cancer gene. They came to crush a competitor because they duplicated technology in a US company's patent. They didn't do a prior art search before starting manufacturing. It's been a political, not technological battle for them all along. The reason that the money involved has balloned has been due to their blatent disregard for previous judgements. Previously judges wanted to penalize them for flouting US Patent law.
Many techies view Microsoft with contempt because of its monopolistic anti-competitive behavior. Why give RIM the pass to satisfy the argument that there are bogus patents out there? They are crushing the small guy, pure and simple.
I agree, it seems like special treatment to review these patents again. Seems like someone said, "Make this go away." Now, "who said it?", is the question.
Do you smell that? It's the smell of US innovation rotting after a napalm attack by big business. Do we really think that innovation and technology can be maintained by big corporations? Old houses of innovation are forced by profit concerns to be very focused as compared to 50 years ago. Where's GE, Xerox, Tektronix, HP, Westinghouse, and Bell Labs for instance? Either dead, packaging other companies' innovations in their boxes, or limiting their work to a myopic focus. Those are just some examples, but with the crazed American business view that a good quarter = a good company, American innovation is grinding to a halt.
How does this relate? There are a legion of fed-up engineers who are innovating in their basements and are free thinking about new inventions. It's research that's not strangled by a typical American corporate quarterly profit model. If the small time inventor, like Thomas Campana, can't patent his inventions and defend it versus big money, it's just another nail in the coffin to US technology.
Soon there really will be only service industry jobs left in the US. Manufacturing left in the 60s-80s. Engineering is starting to flow overseas as we discuss this. By the USPTO killing the small time engineer's patents, they are stymieing (sp!) a chance for engineering to evolve and survive here.
This could be good because getting to cheaper fabrication means allowing more fabless design houses in the US. Perhaps this could slow the gravitational shift of engineering to Asia. Fabless chip houses can be small units funded only by a few million dollars.
on the other hand...
By decreasing the importance of TSMC and UMC, that decreases Taiwan's economic power, allowing China to more easily establish military/political control of the island. Currently, most US presidents honor the economic power of TSMC and UMC and not the alliance from WWII days.
Hmmm, good catches. Wired has always leaned heavily on the epic hyperboles at the sacrifice of just plain truth. I'm glad you guys caught this. Innaccuracies like this are the reason I stopped being a subscirber years ago. They need some real engineers/scientists on staff at Wired otherwise they keep reporting this way.
By the way Scientific American and Discover are not much better.
Well, I think it's reasonable that we allow the teams to use whatever to win. My question relates to whether it is a good autonomous robot/battlefield test. If you're sailing a ship, I'm sure you want to use GPS if it's there, but in a battefield situation, I'd expect it to be jammed, so you must dead reckon and compare to most recent map features. Both teams used sat/GPS info.
My hangup is that with the Robots on this BIG course, why would they be right next to one another? But I guess it's because engineers always think in optimal ways, so the two robots must have been along the same optimal path at the max speed allowed. That's possible, but there's room for doubt.
Actually CCD cameras see different wavelengths than the human eye and at a different gain profile. I believe a CCD camera sees infrared to a good degree. But you have a good point. Perhaps it's just a matter of optics, maybe the hardware is there, just people haven't separated into Bright and Lowlight conditions? Dust is a problem, too, but I imagine that's just a problem of resolution and processing power, up the resolution and you bog down your CPUs ability to analyze each screen shot. Plus, I'll bet these pcs that the teams put in their vehicles were busy churning through all of their training and neural net crap so adding more sensor data would be tough. Perhaps we should separate the tasks more like the brain does, a visual cortex here, an auditory cortex there (ultrasound), but bring the information together in a simplified form to the central integrating unit.
Good point, the article doesn't clear up whether or not it was intentionally following. I think the word "tailgate" biases my reading...
"The race begins quietly: One by one, the vehicles drive off into the hills. A few hours later, the critical moment is captured in grainy footage. CMU's H1 is in the middle of a dusty white desert expanse. The camera slowly approaches - the image is pixelated and overexposed. It's the view from Stanley's rooftop camera. For the past 100 miles, the Touareg has been tailgating the H1, and now it pulls close. Its lasers scan the exterior of its competitor, revealing a ghostly green outline of side panels and a giant, sensor-stabilizing gyroscope. And then the VW rotates its steering wheel and passes"
Exactly. If this is truly a military project then the vehicles must be able to blind-reckon once the satellite information is blocked. What's more annoying is that the tailgating idea for Stanley means that someone else is truly paving the way. While a good strategy for the race, it's does not help an "auto"-nomous vehicle, for Pete's sake.
I think they should make the requirements harder next time and give more money.
Slashdot Mirror
>>So RIM throws lots and lots of dollars at Washington lobbyists to pressure congressmen, who pressure the Patent Office.
>*Good*. This is the one point where I *definitely* agree with RIM. Eliminating software patents would be an incredibly good thing for the tech industry.
Then you must clearly be opposed. If you think using legislators to prove that your technology didn't infringe instead of using the courts is a good idea then you must be drunk with passion about the "patent troll" argument. Really. I agree that we must squash patent trolls, but check your target and for pete's sake, do not condone political pressure in a technology dispute! That's outright criminal behavior!Glad to hear some reason on this site! It's amazing how RIM has "won" over the techie geek masses so easily. There's a lesson there more than just the large amount of money they've used for lawyers and bribery... uh... er... I mean "lobbying". I would think and still think that if people look at the actual abysmal behavior of RIM, even the blind geek masses would see the light. If the 15 second commercial-drunk masses are converted to believe that the most media apparent argument (hence big money) is the more correct one, then there is a serious danger to real innovation/achievement in this country. Cheers!
Oh yeah and "software workaround" well, you might as well say, "US Patent Law Workaround." That's what they're saying to their users.
In the end, this could spell doom for the US electronics/software industry. Startups, unless supremely well funded, will be only minor legal obstacles to big companies. Does this lead to innovation? No it leads to the Detroit 3 crushing competitors and taking down the US economy at the same time.Also, it's up to the patent holder to determine what s/he wants to do with it. Sometimes you may not want to build the manufacturing, just license it to someone else who already has the manufacturing capability. That's been done here, others have licensed the technology, just RIM thinks that US Patent Law doesn't matter.
Sometimes, the Wookie does win though.One way for individual inventors to get around the necessary manufacturing infrastructure is to simply license it. This helps the system because a big dog like, for example, Hitachi could choose a small electronics company's patent and produce it easily and competitively by licensing. This model of small outfits licensing allows for more innovation in general because innovation is not consolidated into an oligarchy of big companies.
So the inventor doesn't count eh? I understand the outrage at Zombie companies (which in my mind doesn't involve the inventor), but again this "witch hunt" mentality has got to stop. Especially if supposedly this website draws the "nerds" or the technically-minded. The mentality goes on to suggest drastic changes are needed to US Patent Law to stop Zombies and all I've heard are suggestions that make it way easier for big companies to squash small companies. Now that just hurts the American economy by focusing all research in big companies... which means less innovation not more, because there are less innovation sites in the American system. I understand your opinion to "go get em!" but check your target--Let's not hurt the inventors, they got us our cushy jobs to begin with.
Though interesting news occurance, it's unrelated to the NTP Vs. RIM. The NTP Vs. RIM case is only a US distribution of a contested technology. But on the other hand, thinking about international patent rights, it's interesting that a Canadian firm would seek to overwhelm a small US patent holder by legal wrangling and political maneuvering.
Don't lose hope. Some of us have worked for small companies where patents do matter and we do need to defend our investment of capital in IP. Somehow the "patents suck" popular drug didn't get the additional warning label, "Warning, may allow large conglomerates to crush inventive small companies simply by their economic clout."
Plus, everyone has been fooled into thinking RIM originated the idea. Gee, and they have money... and power.
Basically, if you rip off/duplicate a patent holder's idea... public consensus is that this is ok as long as the ripoff if cool... like the Blackberry. Who cares about the political shenanigans, the flouting of US Patent law, if the item is cool that'sOh yeah, and Patent Law must suck. It sucks right? Somebody tell me how to think because obviously this case is a zombie case, right? And... and... zombies are bad right? They're all undead and s***. Must be bad. :P
I say that because your arguments feed the domination by big corporations. He who has the biggest factory will produce the cheapest commodity. If you invent something new and cool, guess what, there are already corporations who can build it cheaper than you can. So the inventor has another idea? Well you're up shit creek now, because no investor will touch you. You didn't make money on your first invention. You were undersold by a big company.
Hell, big companies already undersell smaller competitors to destroy their profits and make them burn up their intitial seed money.
Personally, I think that scenario stinks if it is a general rule. There has to be room for the small time inventor. Otherwise our "innovation" will be quite slow because it will be too hard for small companies to compete with megacorps. And megacorps often only see manufacturing as money which means stagnation in innovation. Ever hear, "You can have any color of car you want, as long as its black."? That's a large company (early Ford) talking right there. They could easily outmuscle competitors and for a time, innovation slowed. They were the big dog. Luckily, competition was protected somewhat and challengers came out with more options and better cars. Which saved Ford from itself. Ford innovated like crazy to compete as well. And there you have capitalism working at its best. Profit from competition ecourages innovative thinking means more rapid technological development. Just don't let consolidation of power occur or else the wheels of technology will start to slow down. I hear your pessism about the current situation, which has a strong tinge of ignorance to it, but what would you suggest?I agree that we should kill patent zombie behavior, but let's be careful. It took Texas Instruments more than 10 years to develop DLP (MEMS digital light projection) technology. Sometimes it takes a while to physically realize a patent design. Also, so what if an inventor wants to just license patents? I think we should allow for the small time inventor in his/her shop to just tinker away. Sometimes the crackpots do great things for society. Finally, the onus is still on a company going into production to do a prior art search.
Word. This is pure bull. Again, some "scientists" who don't understand statistics make broad claims. So sad.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNe ws/TPStory/LAC/20051221/RRIM21/TPBusiness/Canadian
The final ruling may have important consequences for the future of engineering in the US.
By the way, NTP did prove that RIM infringed on its patents, so they fulfilled your second thought. Somehow, they've decided to "revisit" the decision and raise it to possible supreme court candidacy. Very interesting. I'm sure there's room in here for some great investigative reporting.
I'd like the issue to be that easy where we could just apply a label to it and condemn it, but unfortunately it's not. The technology was invented in the US by an engineer who wasn't attached to big money. His patent is a threat to RIM and I feel they may win because they simply have a huge amount of money behind them. They are not simply beating out competition with better technology because they have duplicated a prior art. They are using previously invented technology with more funding to get around the inventor.
Many techies view Microsoft with contempt because of its monopolistic anti-competitive behavior. Why give RIM the pass to satisfy the argument that there are bogus patents out there? They are crushing the small guy, pure and simple.
I agree, it seems like special treatment to review these patents again. Seems like someone said, "Make this go away." Now, "who said it?", is the question.
Do you smell that? It's the smell of US innovation rotting after a napalm attack by big business. Do we really think that innovation and technology can be maintained by big corporations? Old houses of innovation are forced by profit concerns to be very focused as compared to 50 years ago. Where's GE, Xerox, Tektronix, HP, Westinghouse, and Bell Labs for instance? Either dead, packaging other companies' innovations in their boxes, or limiting their work to a myopic focus. Those are just some examples, but with the crazed American business view that a good quarter = a good company, American innovation is grinding to a halt.
How does this relate? There are a legion of fed-up engineers who are innovating in their basements and are free thinking about new inventions. It's research that's not strangled by a typical American corporate quarterly profit model. If the small time inventor, like Thomas Campana, can't patent his inventions and defend it versus big money, it's just another nail in the coffin to US technology.Soon there really will be only service industry jobs left in the US. Manufacturing left in the 60s-80s. Engineering is starting to flow overseas as we discuss this. By the USPTO killing the small time engineer's patents, they are stymieing (sp!) a chance for engineering to evolve and survive here.
on the other hand...
By decreasing the importance of TSMC and UMC, that decreases Taiwan's economic power, allowing China to more easily establish military/political control of the island. Currently, most US presidents honor the economic power of TSMC and UMC and not the alliance from WWII days.Cheers!
By the way Scientific American and Discover are not much better.
Cheers!My hangup is that with the Robots on this BIG course, why would they be right next to one another? But I guess it's because engineers always think in optimal ways, so the two robots must have been along the same optimal path at the max speed allowed. That's possible, but there's room for doubt.
It must have been exciting to see!
Cheers!Cheers!
Good point, the article doesn't clear up whether or not it was intentionally following. I think the word "tailgate" biases my reading...
"The race begins quietly: One by one, the vehicles drive off into the hills. A few hours later, the critical moment is captured in grainy footage. CMU's H1 is in the middle of a dusty white desert expanse. The camera slowly approaches - the image is pixelated and overexposed. It's the view from Stanley's rooftop camera. For the past 100 miles, the Touareg has been tailgating the H1, and now it pulls close. Its lasers scan the exterior of its competitor, revealing a ghostly green outline of side panels and a giant, sensor-stabilizing gyroscope. And then the VW rotates its steering wheel and passes"
Cheers!Exactly. If this is truly a military project then the vehicles must be able to blind-reckon once the satellite information is blocked. What's more annoying is that the tailgating idea for Stanley means that someone else is truly paving the way. While a good strategy for the race, it's does not help an "auto"-nomous vehicle, for Pete's sake.
I think they should make the requirements harder next time and give more money.
Isn't Skynet finished yet? :)