|
| Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 10:17 AM EDT |
So they can be ficksed -> fixed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: UncleVom on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
"and the only folks benefiting from US patent law are the old and the
stagnant."
AND the lawyers.
I think we are actually seeing some real innovation when it comes to
manipulation and stretching of existing laws and not to forget the manipulation
of elected officials.
Since the actual manufacture of many "U.S." goods is offshore and that
is where most of the sources of competition also comes from, the Legal industry
and IP protection are the last strings that can keep the US economy appearing to
be alive and growing.
From manufacturers who now only really own nameplates to an entertainment
industry that has been bypassed by technology, you have bogus heavy handed
Government forced trade agreements with other nations as a last ditch effort to
protect what is broken.
If you kill off the patent game plan the whole house of cards will come down
very quickly.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple v Samsung - What's New? Plus All The Preliminary Injunction Arguments (and I Do Mean All) ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 10:58 AM EDT
- Apple v Samsung - What's New? Plus All The Preliminary Injunction Arguments (and I Do Mean All) ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 11:03 AM EDT
- Apple v Samsung - What's New? Plus All The Preliminary Injunction Arguments (and I Do Mean All) ~pj - Authored by: PolR on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 12:51 PM EDT
- No, no - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- Read the St.Louis Fed Res paper - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 04:49 PM EDT
- Apple v Samsung - What's New? Plus All The Preliminary Injunction Arguments (and I Do Mean All) ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 05:42 PM EDT
- Oh, the Shame - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT
- Apple v Samsung - What's New? Plus All The Preliminary Injunction Arguments (and I Do Mean All) ~pj - Authored by: knarf on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 06:15 PM EDT
- Why patents probably won't get fixed - Authored by: Boundless on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 06:22 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 10:57 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 10:58 AM EDT |
Thank you for your support
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 11:07 AM EDT |
Are you going to be able to obtain and post those now? Under a separate post,
or an update to the original?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
Where can we read the now-not-sealed section of Samsung's JMOL that talked about
voir dire? Do we have to wait for them to file a revised copy of it, or do we
already have that text somewhere?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 11:48 AM EDT |
I remember a Susan Estrich as one of the top brain trust of the Dukakis
campaign. I doubt it is the same person, but I have heard her name crop recently
ion this case.
Who is she and why has her named cropped up?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 11:51 AM EDT |
I would like to put the patent industry into context
quickly in one narrow
area.
The field of "Big Data" (where I work) is estimated to be
a $16.5 billion market by
IDC.
What is the Big Data market built
upon? Hadoop, which is an
implementation based on
Google's MapReduce
paper, which Google freely published
without keeping it to
themselves.
Google - as innovators in this field - also filed for a
patent
for their work. I personally think that that patent
was warranted, for it was
so far ahead of its time and the
Big Data industry would be nothing like what
it is today
without the MapReduce paper (and the Hadoop
implementation).
And Google - being nice guys - gave Hadoop its patent
blessing and granted a free license to
Hadoop.
And guess who uses Hadoop
these days, sometimes in an
effort to compete with Google itself?
Well, Microsoft and
Apple are certainly at it.
Hard to do any Big Data without Hadoop these
days.
Its ironic isn't it. Microsoft, Apple and others are
building
Google-killers by using Google technology that
Google gave to the community and
that Google won't assert
patents for... and don't want to share their own
spoils.
Isn't that ridicolous and double-standards? Worst behaviour
I've seen
in the software industry.
I think Google should sue Apple and Microsoft for
copying
its Big Data ideas and get even. But they likely won't
because they're
nice guys.
- Software engineer in the Big Data field [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Tufty on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
I would sooo like Samsung to bring out a non-infringing tablet on Dec 5th then
argue that the whole thing is now irrelevant on the 6th.
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
Who started the patent smartphones? Microsoft and Apple. Old. And
who is their target? Google's Android, which runs on innovative Open Source
Linux. New.
From the technology, all are using established
operating systems and bring them to a new area. Apple even uses a BSD-derived
kernel, so it is not like the starting technology is significantly different,
particularly concerning patentable matter.And Apple did reinvent the
company to a large degree and has been betting the whole company on new
products. And part of the reason is just that they just put their money down on
one horse, Steve Jobs, and it turns out he was worth the risk.
Now Apple is
stuck in the situation that Microsoft has been for decades: business.
Edison
stated that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% transpiration, and they are getting
rid of the 1% as it is not a well-understood process.
You can't directly
influence inspiration, but once you have cast it into patents, you can create
business processes from it.
And make no mistake, a successful business model,
based on patents or not, can do a lot for fostering research and
innovation. The one thing it can't, is substitute for it.
And that's what
they don't get into their heads. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
| Just thinking aloud... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: webster on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
.
But Samsung didn't know her position on protecting the jurors, so they had to
"ask" her by filing this motion and showing their concern. They did
not want to risk hostility. They may be happy she denied it and it is all out
there stinking up the verdict..
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Tkilgore on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
It appears to me that Samsung did not really lose anything when the requests for
sealing were denied.
Samsung was in the position that it has to defend the rights of the jurors to
privacy and also has to defend the right of third parties to the case to keep
their private information private. Samsung could not have done otherwise than to
file as it did.
If the judge in the case insists that all of this material has to be released to
the public, then it has been done by denying Samsung's motions. Samsung is
hardly responsible for the denials and none of affected parties can blame
Samsung. But surely many could and would blame Samsung if Samsung had not
tried.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 02:56 PM EDT |
As for Microsoft, it still thinks we all still want good olde
Windows, Windows with a new dress on, but the heart of it is the same old,
decades old Windows, so it can run the programs you've used
forever.
Microsoft doesn't think that. Microsoft knows that most
users would dump
them in a heartbeat, if offered a competitive alternative.
That's what
happened in SmartPhones. With a competitive alternative people
choose
not to buy Windows Phones.
Without their monopoly
advantage, Microsoft is incapable of competing.
Using their monopoly they've
blocked places like Best Buy and Office
Depot from selling Gnu-Linux/Gnu-BSD
computers. They've also blocked
the computer OEMs from pushing
them.
Exactly how limiting the market is good for consumers I'll
leave the
competition people to
explain.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
Who started the patent smartphones? Microsoft and Apple. Old. And
who is their target? Google's Android, which runs on innovative Open Source
Linux. New.
My feeling is it's more insidious than this and see
old and new a different way around. All of the phone manufacturers (Samsung,
Motorola, LG, Nokia? etc) were playing fairly nicely with each other. Then the
new starts on the (phone) block, Apple and Microsoft came to the picture and
didn't want to join in as they had nothing to offer so would have had to pay the
full price to each incumbent.
They took different paths - MS in it's Nokia
alliance (who incidentally then went and hit up Apple for a big amount) and
Apple with it's litigation strategy. Of course at the same time, both were
creating as many bogo-patents as they could, to make it appear like they had
something to offer in return for the patents they require to do
business.
No-one (bar Oracle) seems to have gone after Android directly yet,
that's a different story possibly somewhere down the road.
Google, another
newcomer to the field did the normal business thing, they bought an
incumbent.
Just my spin on it... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 03:58 AM EDT |
“Because a verdict may not be impeached on the basis of the jury's
internal deliberations or the manner in which it arrived at its
verdict,...
This seems like a pretty high bar for Samsung to beat,
unfortunately. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
