|
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, February 27 2013 @ 01:45 PM EST |
Judge upholds FaceTime patent
verdict against Apple, orders royalties to boot
A
$368.2 million verdict against Apple has been upheld in the Eastern District
of Texas, putting patent holding company VirnetX in a position to collect both
royalties and damages from Apple if it continues to use its VPN and FaceTime
technologies.
Live by the patent, die by the patent.
--- The
price of freedom is eternal litigation. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 27 2013 @ 02:37 PM EST |
There, fixed that for them. It was my understanding that live gigs were roaring
away with the money, and it was the savvy groups who had
removed themselves
from the grasp of the record moguls that was causing the misery in Nashville,
Motown, or wherever the studios are now.
Forbes said it last year. More
numbers from
live music exchange.
The Atlantic suggests
that any perceived problem is not global, as different local markets respond to
different audience demands.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 06:23 AM EST |
http://www.muktware.com/5295/linus-torvalds-suggests-how-handle-uefi-secure-boot
-crisis
I'm glad someone is tellin' it like it is.
And for the record, some people really need to look up "Security
Theatre" and why it's bad.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 07:24 AM EST |
A dissenting
voice from the FTC/Google consent
agreement Posted on January
4, 2013 --- RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 01:24 PM EST |
Somebody bookmark this, as it'll be prior art in a frivolous
patent-case some day. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 06:32 PM EST |
Note that the link takes you to Gene Quinns blog if you prefer to know that
in advance. Article link.
Sweet! Judge Rader has - in
my humble opinion - a more reasonable definition of a patent troll then has been
previously outlined in rulings.
Previous definitions of "patent troll"
that appears in Court and Congress documents is:
A patent troll is a non
practicing entity!
I've never much liked that definition as even practicing
entities can be patent trolls. Of course, my definition stems from the original
definition for a troll told in childrens stories:
An entity that takes up
residency under a bridge that the entity has no claim over and then demands
compensation from anyone wishing to cross said bridge.
To change that into
patent lingo:
An entity that lays claim to technology that the entity has no
claim over and demands compensation from others who make/use that
technology.
For example: abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.
As a result, to acquire a patent on an abstract idea is to lay claim to
technology that one does not have any claim over.
Judge Rader appears to
view it very much the same:
A patent troll is anybody who asserts a
patent far beyond the value of its contribution to the art. That means that any
institution can be a troll.
It's nice to see one Chief Judge hit
the nail on the head:
... I’ll be happy to save you money by
settling at far less than that.” And, of course, that i[t] litigation blackmail.
That’s the tactical use of the expense of the system, which is
abusive.
That's not the only tactically abusive use of course. The
abuse starts when the Lawyer takes something s/he knows is not patentable, plays
with the words till it resembles patentable subject matter, applies for a
patent, starts marketing it till for licensing (even, in some cases, before it's
granted a patent) till it's eventually either voided by the USPTO/Courts or the
date on the patent runs out.
An example is dressing E=MC2 up
as a process in order to get it patented. As far as I know, no one has
specifically presented that to the USPTO.
However, during one of
Groklaw's many discussions that surrounded patentable subject matter with patent
lawyers willing to discuss the situation:
It was presented as a process
example by a patent lawyer claiming it's patentability.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- E=MC^2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 08:45 PM EST
- E=MC^2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 03:39 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 10:18 PM EST |
The file linked to on the EFF site dates the patent as filed in 2009. RSS was
created in the late nineties and provides exactly this type of functionality.
Surely this is enough previous art to get it overturned. Its too bad honest
folks have to spend a lot of money fighting stupid suits this like one.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|