|
|
|
| Authored by: bprice on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 06:20 AM EST |
As needed.
---
--Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially mine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bprice on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 06:21 AM EST |
Please include the URL from the News-Pick headline.
---
--Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially mine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Patent trolls want $1,000—for using scanners - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 12:45 PM EST
- Judge dings Apple 'app store' claim vs. Amazon - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:20 PM EST
- BBC: Ubuntu operating system comes to Android (Most positive post I have seen). - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 05:08 PM EST
- Preliminary EU Parliament Report Published by M-CAM - here's the summary conclusion - Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 08:02 PM EST
- Microsoft says Google trying to undermine Windows Phone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 08:36 PM EST
- Oh my: That's hilarious! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 09:03 PM EST
- Microsoft says Google trying to use tricks from the MS book - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 09:46 PM EST
- Irony = Microsoft complaining about so called anti trust issues. n/t - Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:31 PM EST
- How pitiful! Microsoft must be desperate - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:39 AM EST
- Microsoft says Google trying to undermine Windows Phone - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 01:04 AM EST
- I've got some lovely Boot Black that the Pot can use - Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:23 AM EST
- A perspective on MS not developing IE for Linux and BSD - Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:48 AM EST
- Microsoft finds something they can do better than Google - Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:54 AM EST
- Microsoft says Google trying to undermine Windows Phone - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:58 AM EST
- "Google continues to prevent..." - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:33 PM EST
- Google reportedly to settle antitrust probe on January 3 - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 01:09 AM EST
- Marc Rochkind review of Chromebook - Authored by: argee on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 04:21 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: bprice on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 06:22 AM EST |
On-topic comments will be penalized; the penalty will be disclosed later.
---
--Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially mine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- New Year Honours list recognises UK tech visionaries - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 08:19 AM EST
- While some get honours, Cook gets a pay cut! - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 08:25 AM EST
- $5 lamps powered by gravity for the 3rd World - Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 08:50 AM EST
- The Nokia Form 20-F two years ago - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 12:02 PM EST
- Significant booting challenges on EFI systems when upgrading to Windows 8 - Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 04:03 PM EST
- How do you know if your strategy has failed the nokia form 20f submitted to the nystock exchange - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 04:34 PM EST
- Link - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 04:36 PM EST
- Link - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 06:21 PM EST
- Link - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 06:29 PM EST
- Picture Tells it Better - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 07:32 PM EST
- Penalty for posting on-topic - Authored by: albert on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 04:55 PM EST
- Ouch! n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 06:40 PM EST
- Oy... - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:51 PM EST
- New York City Crime Rise Blamed on Apple - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 05:00 PM EST
- The Wisdom of Psychopaths - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 05:33 PM EST
- Emailing a scanned document patented ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 06:20 PM EST
- Raspberry Pi - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 06:50 PM EST
- Apple patents method to bend glass - Authored by: N_au on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:10 AM EST
- google mintbox - Authored by: jsoulejr on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 09:35 AM EST
- iPad suffers dramatic post-Christmas web share fall - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 11:10 AM EST
- Samsung confirms it will sell Tizen-based smartphones - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 11:15 AM EST
- History - Authored by: symbolset on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 03:48 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: bprice on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 06:23 AM EST |
And thanks for participating.
---
--Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially mine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kuroshima on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 08:19 AM EST |
Just one question, should the judge force Motorola to offer
Microsoft a license on lower terms than what it's current
licensees are paying, would that not allow the current
licensees to request the same terms, under Motorola's FRAND
obligations? I see Pandora's Box opening...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:29 AM EST |
Google have proved themselves sharp so this will be
interesting.
---
Silverwave (Not Logged In )[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:04 PM EST |
"...Honorable James L. Robart, had just ruled that Motorola would have no
right to injunctive relief in the US and Germany..."
How, exactly does a U.S. judge rule that Motorola has no right to injunctive
relief in Germany?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:39 PM EST |
If all patents were held to the standard Microsoft is suggesting (and quite
possibly a part of the Law agrees with): there would be no software
patents!
Software patents explicitly spelled out have - from what I can
see - been 100% rejected by the USPTO. As a result, the wording has evolved to
"define" (if you want to use that word) the so called "invention" with far less
clarity. To obfuscate it (my humble opinion, not a Legal ruling). As one
Lawyer authored here an example of how to patent E=MC2 (my
para-phrasing from memory):
A method to identify the amount of
energy
As derived from figuring the mass of the item
Thereby taken
said mass and multiplying it by a sum
Of which sum consists of the square
of the speed of light
Thereby giving the total amount of
energy!
Obfuscation of a concept via the deliberate selection of words to
hide the fact that E=MC2 is math!
As Microsoft
presents:
The asserted apparatus claims of the patents in suit are
invalid as indefinite because the patents do not adequately describe
structure
And as a lot* of us Software Developers seem
to attest to: The descriptions are insufficient for us experts in the field to
decipher to know how to build the so-called "invention". We're given a high
level concept and left to run with it in order to build our own
version.
It's like outlining the high level concept of a mouse trap and
then laying claim to all versions no matter how simple or complex the given
mousetrap was. And - to make the analogy fully complete - not actually
specifying mouse so as to lay claim not just to all mousetraps, but all forms of
trap even the trap to catch an Elephant.
*: I've never
seen any studies done to find out what kind of percentage feel that way. It's
just the impression from being around like-minded people of which my own
experience is that: while those developers that view software patents as ok
exist, they are a much smaller percentage. As a result, this is certainly an
opinion based on almost non-existent scientific data.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 07:07 AM EST |
Why does PJ do this to me? I'm sure that this is exactly what patent pools do,
but it doesn't make any legal sense.
Anyway, in passing, I would like to remind you what patent pools do. They find
an international standard that may or may not include patents, essential to the
implementation of the standard, under a FRAND statement. Then they put out
enquiries for any issued patents that are not essential to make the standard
work, but which lend themselves to extorting money from implementers of world
standards.
In other words, patent pool essential patents are only essential for the
extortion of money from companies that want to implement world standards.
Back to our sheep. The USPTO says 'only one invention per patent'. It should be
the case that the patent is not a receptical for a ragbag of irrelevant claims
just there to provide a basis to sue folk, but should contain just those claims
necessary to make the invention complete.
How can each valid claim have a worth in its own right? How can you infringe on
the actual patented invention if you don't infringe on all of the claims that
comprise the invention? How can an invention be complete and the patent valid
when there are claims essential to the invention definition which are legally
invalid?
Of course, if the patent pool syndicate are talking about the value of a claim
as guns on the litigation table for the purpose of an extortion business plan,
then it all makes sense.
Stop referring to me as 'Mr Angry'! It makes me very... Well, never you mind
what it makes me!
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
