|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
I know, bad form to reply to myself. I should have kept the other post open
till I finished the article.
The bill is careful not to endorse
software patents even as it provides defendants with stronger protections
against them.
For the Patent Lawyers: isn't it a pity you just
can't seem to get Congress to outright say software is patentable. True... they
don't want to outright rule software as non-patentable. I figure that just
means the topic of whether software should be patentable or not is still open
for reasonable discussion.
In other words: just because we're
defining "software patent" doesn't necessarily mean software patents are
legal.
Love It!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
Um, this wouldn't happen to be a backdoor way of sneaking in a broader
definition of patents would it?
Cynical, yes, but I've seen stuff like that done before.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT |
There's a link to the bill in the article.
The term "Software
Patent" means (B) any computer system that is programmed to perform a process
described in sub-paragraph A
I think that puts to bed the argument
that somehow programming a computer creates a different machine. Bottom line:
It doesn't matter1 - either the "software patent" definition applies
to the patent in question (and more specifically to how the defendant is
supposed to have "infringed") or it does not. That's how I interpret the
situation anyway.
The court may award the recovery of full costs to
the prevailing party, including reasonable attorney's fees
If I
read that part correctly, there goes the strategy2 of deliberately
driving up discovery costs.... they may be awarded to the defendant.
This
will apply for any action involving the validity or infringement of computer
hardware or software for which complaint is filed on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
My paraphrasing to shorten the paragraph (not sure
how well I succeeded). My future telling:
Like we witnessed previously when
the Law was changed to no longer allow big group lawsuits, we'll see a flood of
troll Lawsuits prior to the date this Bill will become active if it makes it
that far.
I certainly hope it makes it all the way.
1: I think
the argument for "creating a new machine" is still valid from the perspective of
the discussion with whether or not software should be patentable in the first
place. But with a passing of the Bill as worded, I think it's just been wiped
out of the picture with regards how a "software patent" is described for
purposes of a Lawsuit.
2: It's possible trolls will still use the
strategy by keeping their own assets to a minimum so if things go South they
simply close up shop. But I think they would be well advised to take the
situation surrounding Righthaven as an example. They will still have the
patents as assets and if the value of the patents ends up being less then the
Court Costs, the defendant can always apply to take ownership of the
patents.
I wonder how Micrsoft would like them apples.
Microsoft gets
a patent on FAT.
They "sell" the patent to Troll X with the agreement
being that Microsoft will receive part of any profits.
Troll X keeps
their assets to a minimum.
Troll X sues Google.
Google wins
and qualifies for costs covered.
Google gets the FAT
patent.
Google then ignores Microsoft's history with the patent and
deliberately explicitly licenses the patent for use with all versions of the
GPL!
I must say: such a scenario comes across pretty sweet. I'd love to
see the look on Ballmer's face as he realizes what happened.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
