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
Wow is that spot on or What?! | 141 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge upholds FaceTime patent verdict against Apple, orders royalties to boot
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 | # ]

Daily Report: [Recorded] Music Industry Sales Rise
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 | # ]

Linus Torvalds Suggests How To Handle UEFI Secure Boot Crisis
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 | # ]

Wow is that spot on or What?!
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 | # ]

Scientists Uncover Invisible Motion in Video
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 | # ]

Chief Judge Rader Speaks Out About Patent Litigation Abuse
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
Podcasting Community Faces Patent Troll Threat; EFF Wants to Help
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 | # ]

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 )