The LG Prada was announced December 12, 2006 and came out May 2007. Apple showed the iPhone January 9th 2007 and released it June 29th 2007.
To go from seeing the Prada in December to a workable prototype iPhone in less than a month would be very difficult. Apparently the Prada did win an award in Sept. 2006, but even if someone from Apple saw it then, that's still a huge leap to think Apple could design the iPhone and write iOS up enough to show it in Jan 2007.
The point isn't to show that Apple copied LG. The point is to show that a company other than Apple had the same idea before the iPhone was released. As for tablets, those have been around for 20+ years, Apple simply recognized that the hardware was finally good enough to make a marketable tablet.
"We have to make our tablet thinner because the iPad 2 is thinner" infringes a design patent? Isn't making the device as thin and light as reasonably possible an obvious goal for any handheld device? That's like saying Intel is stealing ideas from AMD when Intel tries to increase CPU clock speeds to keep up with AMD (and vice versa).
Despite using the word "patent", design patents in the United States are more like trademark and/or copyright than utility patents (what is usually meant by the word "patent").
There's a huge difference between manufacturing a product that is intended to look nearly identical in order to confuse consumers, especially when the only difference is a subtle change to the trademark, and manufacturing a competing product that "looks the same" to the extent that it's also a rectangular tablet computer with rounded corners where the UI is similar to a standard computer.
Do Ceglia's lawyers not know that you can mark stuff as confidential so that only the lawyers, judge, and jury can see it? How can it be more confidential than that?
More so, specifically, don't assume that since the disclaimer says they last 20 years that that means that it has expired.
Well, this is something that can be verified outside of whatever disclaimer is in the code. In this case, though, it isn't quite right. A patent that issued in 1990 would be valid for 17 years after issue. Patents that issue now are valid for 20 years after filing.
The problem is & always has been that copying doesn't equate to stealing. When IP law catches up to this reasoning, we'll all be in a better place.
The law is already well aware of the differences between theft and infringement of patents, trademarks, and copyrights. It's just certain people and organizations that try to blur them all together.
The replicator (seemingly) fabricated any item out of thin air (yea, there was probably some psuedoscience bullshit explaining this in a reference manual somewhere).
I always assumed that the "pseudoscience bullshit" was just e = mc^2. The fundamental axiom of Star Trek's society was the existence of unlimited free energy. If you have unlimited energy, you can create whatever particles, atoms, and molecules you need at the moment, and then convert it all back into energy when you're done with them.
Yes, brainfuck is much faster [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck] and it's not bloated with the useless stuff (objects, classes, letters, digits).
Dude, seriously? Are you kidding? Brainfuck is horribly, incredibly bloated. For a real language without all the ridiculous bloat of Brainfuck, there's only one reasonable choice
It they can do that why cant they do something more useful like make the change visual.
Maybe they're restricted by physics and chemistry? Just because they found one substance that emits certain wavelengths, that doesn't mean they instantly know what substances could emit any given wavelength under any given conditions.
FYI, it is the US Senate's responsibility to propose and pass a budget.
Not that I would be exceptionally surprised if this were now true, since even the president proposes a budget, but constitutionally, the House of Representatives has authority over government spending.
I can't remember the term for it, but isn't there a patent defence if the patent holder intentionally delays attempting to enforce a patent to maximise damages that invalidates the patent?
No, you're only prevented from receiving damages for the time after you became aware of the infringement. If your patent is granted in 2000, someone starts infringing that patent in 2002, you become aware of the infringement in 2004, and you file a lawsuit in 2011, you're only entitled to damages for 2002-2004.
Maybe not quite as severe as losing your patent completely, but you definitely shouldn't have the right to sue them for exorbitant damages if you're conniving enough to watch them get away with it until they're ripe to be sued.
You shouldn't, and you don't. You can't sue for damages that occur between the time that you become aware of the infringement and the time that you file the lawsuit or otherwise notify the infringer (possibly excepting some brief window that allows to get all your paperwork together).
Maybe Newegg will get such a huge increase in business that they have to build a dozen new warehouses to store products that are about to be shipped out.
The similarity is that they have no intrinsic value, but only have value because people will take your currency in exchange for real goods and services. The difference, of course, is that typical currencies have their value backed by a government, which is (usually) a stable organization that has the legal authority and, if necessary, the force of arms to guarantee the currency. BitCoin, on the other hand, has nothing backing it besides the word of some people that you've never met.
Any sentence beginning this way is automatically incorrect.
Re:This is confusing, a little
on
Righthaven Loses
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Of course a company can hire a law firm to work on a lawsuit against anyone the company wants. When they do, though, the company's name, not the law firm's name, is attached to the case as the plaintiff. In this case, though, Righthaven is listed as the plaintiff, which means that they aren't the firm hired to work on the case, but that they are claiming to be the party that has been harmed.
Slashdot Mirror
The LG Prada was announced December 12, 2006 and came out May 2007. Apple showed the iPhone January 9th 2007 and released it June 29th 2007.
To go from seeing the Prada in December to a workable prototype iPhone in less than a month would be very difficult. Apparently the Prada did win an award in Sept. 2006, but even if someone from Apple saw it then, that's still a huge leap to think Apple could design the iPhone and write iOS up enough to show it in Jan 2007.
The point isn't to show that Apple copied LG. The point is to show that a company other than Apple had the same idea before the iPhone was released. As for tablets, those have been around for 20+ years, Apple simply recognized that the hardware was finally good enough to make a marketable tablet.
"We have to make our tablet thinner because the iPad 2 is thinner" infringes a design patent? Isn't making the device as thin and light as reasonably possible an obvious goal for any handheld device? That's like saying Intel is stealing ideas from AMD when Intel tries to increase CPU clock speeds to keep up with AMD (and vice versa).
Despite using the word "patent", design patents in the United States are more like trademark and/or copyright than utility patents (what is usually meant by the word "patent").
There's a huge difference between manufacturing a product that is intended to look nearly identical in order to confuse consumers, especially when the only difference is a subtle change to the trademark, and manufacturing a competing product that "looks the same" to the extent that it's also a rectangular tablet computer with rounded corners where the UI is similar to a standard computer.
Do Ceglia's lawyers not know that you can mark stuff as confidential so that only the lawyers, judge, and jury can see it? How can it be more confidential than that?
lasting for decades
Or until someone busts out a hose. Whichever is sooner.
Have you been to New York City? I'd bet on the decades.
I think you missed the issue date of the patent. Protip: unlike copyright, patents expire during your lifetime.
More so, specifically, don't assume that since the disclaimer says they last 20 years that that means that it has expired.
Well, this is something that can be verified outside of whatever disclaimer is in the code. In this case, though, it isn't quite right. A patent that issued in 1990 would be valid for 17 years after issue. Patents that issue now are valid for 20 years after filing.
The problem is & always has been that copying doesn't equate to stealing. When IP law catches up to this reasoning, we'll all be in a better place.
The law is already well aware of the differences between theft and infringement of patents, trademarks, and copyrights. It's just certain people and organizations that try to blur them all together.
The replicator (seemingly) fabricated any item out of thin air (yea, there was probably some psuedoscience bullshit explaining this in a reference manual somewhere).
I always assumed that the "pseudoscience bullshit" was just e = mc^2. The fundamental axiom of Star Trek's society was the existence of unlimited free energy. If you have unlimited energy, you can create whatever particles, atoms, and molecules you need at the moment, and then convert it all back into energy when you're done with them.
Encryption over the internet? no one had send audio via SSL prior to that date?
Read the claim again (or, more likely for you, for the first time). The way it does encryption is more specific than just SSL.
Yes, brainfuck is much faster [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck] and it's not bloated with the useless stuff (objects, classes, letters, digits).
Dude, seriously? Are you kidding? Brainfuck is horribly, incredibly bloated. For a real language without all the ridiculous bloat of Brainfuck, there's only one reasonable choice
It they can do that why cant they do something more useful like make the change visual.
Maybe they're restricted by physics and chemistry? Just because they found one substance that emits certain wavelengths, that doesn't mean they instantly know what substances could emit any given wavelength under any given conditions.
FYI, it is the US Senate's responsibility to propose and pass a budget.
Not that I would be exceptionally surprised if this were now true, since even the president proposes a budget, but constitutionally, the House of Representatives has authority over government spending.
However, it does NOT look fine on IE5 for Windows.
What does?
about:blank?
So let's see what kind of website are we on, here? Does "News for nerds" ring a bell?
Yeah, I vaguely recall something like that 5 or so years ago.
I can't remember the term for it, but isn't there a patent defence if the patent holder intentionally delays attempting to enforce a patent to maximise damages that invalidates the patent?
No, you're only prevented from receiving damages for the time after you became aware of the infringement. If your patent is granted in 2000, someone starts infringing that patent in 2002, you become aware of the infringement in 2004, and you file a lawsuit in 2011, you're only entitled to damages for 2002-2004.
A penalty for deliberately trying to mislead the patent examiners would go a long way towards resolving this problem...
It's called inequitable conduct, and it can get your patent thrown out if someone else can prove it to a judge.
Maybe not quite as severe as losing your patent completely, but you definitely shouldn't have the right to sue them for exorbitant damages if you're conniving enough to watch them get away with it until they're ripe to be sued.
You shouldn't, and you don't. You can't sue for damages that occur between the time that you become aware of the infringement and the time that you file the lawsuit or otherwise notify the infringer (possibly excepting some brief window that allows to get all your paperwork together).
Maybe Newegg will get such a huge increase in business that they have to build a dozen new warehouses to store products that are about to be shipped out.
"natural berth control" methods
Is that when the ship isn't given any help beyond being told to breathe?
Fox gets far more right than you'd ever like to admit
Well played, sir.
The similarity is that they have no intrinsic value, but only have value because people will take your currency in exchange for real goods and services. The difference, of course, is that typical currencies have their value backed by a government, which is (usually) a stable organization that has the legal authority and, if necessary, the force of arms to guarantee the currency. BitCoin, on the other hand, has nothing backing it besides the word of some people that you've never met.
Nobody could be stupid enough to...
Any sentence beginning this way is automatically incorrect.
Of course a company can hire a law firm to work on a lawsuit against anyone the company wants. When they do, though, the company's name, not the law firm's name, is attached to the case as the plaintiff. In this case, though, Righthaven is listed as the plaintiff, which means that they aren't the firm hired to work on the case, but that they are claiming to be the party that has been harmed.