decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Too bad Mr. Quinn doesn't see himself as part of the problem | 343 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Why should Trolls get all the attention?
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, December 11 2012 @ 07:46 AM EST

Trolls have been getting all the attention lately, but I don't think they should be divorced from anti-competitive use of patents in general, like Microsoft's "Android tax" or Apple's thermonuclear war. These are all the same problem, with the same roots - poor quality patents that should never have issued.

The myth that patents are given to protect and encourage "innovation" must be challenged loudly until the general public finally understands that patents are the end product of a broken and corrupt system, rather than the reward for inspiration and invention.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Troll Turning Point? Gene Quinn's hope springs eternal...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 11 2012 @ 10:27 AM EST
Yeah, this case doesn't do much to solve the real problem,
which is that you can patent stuff that's not new. This
case establishes that there might (eventually) be a penalty
for suing under patents that the defendant obviously doesn't
violate. Example: claim limited to devices with a printer
inside the device's housing, defendant's device has an
external printer.
The Fed Circuit ruled that the defendant could pursue Rule
11 sanctions against the lawyers who brought this
abomination to court, but left it up to the district court
(same one who didn't think this case was worthy of Rule 11
sanctions) to decide (pending yet another appeal, of course)
whether the plaintiffs would have to pay the defendant's
legal costs.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Too bad Mr. Quinn doesn't see himself as part of the problem
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 11 2012 @ 10:31 AM EST

The Supreme's: Math is not patentable subject matter!

Mr. Quinn: Math is patentable, you just have to word it the right way!

And does one really believe Mr. Quinn won't attempt to enforce math patents even though the Supreme's have made their position on the topic quite clear?

The Law has one definition for patent trolls:

    Non practicing entities
I have a different definition:
    Someone willing to game the patent system, to misuse it in order to acquire patents that should not be. To then use those patents to acquire money from the individuals that actually do the work in society.
And yes: I believe playing word games to make math look like not math is abusing the patent system.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Raylon patent is worthless
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 11 2012 @ 12:35 PM EST
The Raylon patent is worthless. It is for a handheld device that a policeman
could use to scan an encoded strip on a driver's license and issue a traffic
ticket. The fact that the strip is there anticipates using it to issue a ticket.
The patent calls for a hinged display ("pivotally mounted") in every
claim. A device with a fixed display would not infringe.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )