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
What is the 'cost' of a software patent? | 197 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Speaking of rounded corners....
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 05 2013 @ 11:34 PM EST
How does this news affect Apple v Samsung? Apple wins design patent for slide to unlock

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread
Authored by: songmaster on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:11 AM EST
Post any corrextions here pleeze.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread
Authored by: songmaster on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:13 AM EST
Write nothing here about the main story, this thread is for other stuff only.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread
Authored by: songmaster on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:15 AM EST
Please link to the News story you're commenting on (read the "how to post
in HTML notes below the comment box).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes thread
Authored by: songmaster on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:18 AM EST
Results from those ferreting about in the Comes v. MS archive.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Newegg Victory over Soverain; and Newegg et al's Amicus Brief in Apple v. Motorola Appeal ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:53 AM EST

Allowing parties to tell juries that any single feature drives demand leads to jury confusion...

...drugs may have only one ingredient driving customer demand, but when a smartphone may be using 200,000 or more patents, deciding what patent drives customer demand or to what degree ends up confusing juries
There was only ONE feature that drove my choice when buying my last smartphone: it was NOT made by Apple [nor Sony...]. If juries would like to take that into consideration, then it is a negative demand for an Apple [or Sony...] product and so should reduce any damages. To be even more blunt, if the only product available was an Apple [or Sony...] I would NOT buy it - I would go without it; thart is to say, if the only product was Apple's [or Sony...'s] I would still not buy it [nor want it as a gift from someone else].

[ Reply to This | # ]

But that would totally demolish the market for monopoly rent seeking :)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 09:48 AM EST

Wouldn't it be ironic if the courts were to respond to the smartphone patent wars -- which Apple and Microsoft got into to try to destroy Android -- by reevaluating how patent infringement damages awards are calculated, so that such litigation tactics no longer paid off and companies had to go back to innovating and competing in the marketplace instead of trying to clobber each other with questionable patents in courtrooms?


A while back I got interested in how the law 'swings' over time. I'll blame PJ for that.

What I found was there would often be shifts in interpretation, as the courts realized that a system that had been working for years no longer applied because circumstances had changed, or as the courts learned more about a subject.

PJ had mentioned this a couple of times, but it hadn't really sunk in. Then I looked at the history of abortion in Canada. Dr. Henry Morgenthaler had been arrested and charged for inducing an abortion several times. Each time he was found not guilty by the jury. The law was eventually changed.

There was a Same-Sex marriage case where the courts ruled that Same- Sex couples couldn't be denied rights. Once again, the law was changed, and that was only 25 years after the infamous Bath House Raids.

Yes, I'm quoting Canadian cases. I know more about them. I is one.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Marc Webbink AWOL?
Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 10:33 AM EST
Say PJ,

I haven't seen Marc Webbink report in at least since last
September.
That is 5 months ago.

I do not recall any announcement as to his (dis)continued
assignment in overseeing Groklaw.

Would you please care to enlighten us?

bjd


[ Reply to This | # ]

What is the 'cost' of a software patent?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 11:40 AM EST
First, thanks for covering the Newegg story!

I am intrigued with this idea because many new devices regularly get teardowns with the cost of the components (and cost of any hardware patents). Sure there is an expectation for other income sources especially if brought under some contract. But you can directly buy a device and not fund those services (for example, only use Amazon on a non-Amazon tablet). So if the cost of the components exceed the cost of device, then is the sum cost of any other patents, including any software-related ones, zero?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Newegg Victory over Soverain; and Newegg et al's Amicus Brief in Apple v. Motorola Appeal ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 11:54 AM EST
I liked newegg before this because of their customer service..

After this I love newegg!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Egregious abuse of the patent system.
Authored by: gettys on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 12:34 PM EST
I consulted for the defense team on one of these cases some
years
ago, and was quite upset when I heard the case had been
lost. As
I was the editor of the HTTP standards document, I'm pretty
expert
at the base capabilities of the web.

I consider the OpenMarket patents to be particularly
egregious,
and am delighted to see them bite the dust.

When I read the three patents, it became clear to me the
patent
system had been gamed.

The first patent describes the method that OpenMarket used
to
implement their shopping cart before the days cookies were
added
to HTTP. The methods they had to come up with were pretty
messy;
you had to store an session ID in the URL that would
propagate
from one phase of the shopping experience to the next. IIRC
(this
is about 4 years ago), I believed there was prior art for
this
method, though I forget why I have that opinion as my memory
is
getting cloudy, and have not reviewed what I dug up. I
don't
think the prior art used at trial was what I think I found
though;
what was described doesn't ring a bell (I suspect they found
better prior art). The method itself is quite specific to
how
OpenMarket's system worked.

But current systems use cookies (for better or worse) and it
is
much easier to implement a shopping system; no one uses the
method
described by that first patent. And having some sort of a
session
ID clearly predates the OpenMarket system in all sorts of
systems,
back to early computing systems (and probably before). So
non-
infringement struck me as also a clear defense, as well as
prior
art.

What really stuck in my craw, however, was the sequence of
the
patents. The second patent, issued years later, was
broader, and
the third, issued yet more years later, so broad as to cover
much
of computer science. I think you could have read the third
patent
on almost any complex system out there; it's bad enough that
they
went after the entire on-line shopping industry, but who
knows
where it could have led.

It's clear (to me) the lawyers successively beat down the
patent
office until they poor patent office examiners gave up.

This kind of gaming the patent system (so long as we have
software
patents) has got to be stamped out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Impact on Frand
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06 2013 @ 05:45 PM EST
I agree with the idea of basing the costs on the difference resulting from using
a patented technology verses the the best available non-patented technology;this
sounds like courts would be determining the value of a patent.

How does this work with a standards-essential patent? Is the value based on
the difference between selling something and not selling anything at all? Or
should the licensing for standard patents be available the same rate regardless
of who is licensing it?

[ Reply to This | # ]
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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.04 seconds