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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Speaking for myself | 282 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Personal opinion
Authored by: ailuromancy on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 03:33 AM EDT

Perhaps a dozen good patents are granted every year, but squashing those is a miniscule price to pay for obliterating the entire patent system - especially as even good patents are rarely a good way to reward research.

For now, the patent system is with us, and while it still diverting research funds to lawyers it would be nice if it were applied even handedly: If some companies make a big stink with patents, they have to stay in the room and suffer the smell along with everyone else.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

we like fairness. This.
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 03:40 AM EDT
.

---
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 | # ]

So PJ, do we like patents?
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:40 AM EDT
First of all, who is "we"?

Second, positions on large themes is one thing.
Positions on particular litigation is another.
There is a connection, but it's not always
obvious, perhaps. But it is always this: I
look for cases that can go the wrong way for
FOSS, and I look for cases where something
seriously unfair has happened (Samsung, for
example). With the FRAND cases, it's Microsoft
and Apple, two proprietary companies trying to
kill Android -- one of them even said so out loud
and the other has been on that path for years --
trying to disarm Android vendors who have
FRAND patents that they are using to defend
themselves from patent infringement war.

What side do you think I would be on in such
a scenario?

But in the larger context, I think no software
patents are valid, being unpatentable subject
matter. Until the USPTO and the US Supreme
Court agree, we are left with these stupid
patent wars, and strategic decisions require
realistic factors in play, not ideal ones that
haven't happened yet.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

So PJ, do we like patents?
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:57 AM EDT
In american football, i think that referees are too cavalier
with the personal foul for hitting a player who is on the
way out of bounds (they are still on the field, they can
still get hit). But if my team has benefited 15 yards due to
poor decision of a defensive player, i will welcome it
wholly.

In basketball, the block/charge call is leaning heavily on
the charge calls lately - my opinion is that it has gotten
out of hand and defenders are given the benefit of the doubt
even when they "sell" the contact. But if one of my players
takes a weak bump and happens to fall over, i want the
charge call.

In both of my sports analogies, i think the calls are bad
for sports. I want the rules changed for both of them.
HOWEVER< as long as the rules are the way they are, I want
both teams to be officiated fairly, with the same set of
rules and execution of those rules. Patent litigation is no
different.

I don't like any software patents, but as long as they
exist, I want every company to play by all the same rules.
i.e. Apple/Microsoft should not be able to get away with not
licensing Samsung/Motorola SEPs



---
IANAL

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Speaking for myself
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 04:04 PM EDT

On the topics of patents in general:

    Patents may serve a useful purpose. But given the harm a Monopoly brings to the market, patents should be given out rarely for the much more unique invention. Patents as applied today are given out for pretty much anything including a patent being granted on the wheel. Too many patent lawyers seem to believe in "if it's a thought, it's patentable".
On the topic of software patents:
    Given software is abstract - and does not ever embody physical form - and abstract concepts are not patentable subject matter, software patents should not exist.
So to answer your questions:
We hate all patents?
Nope! We dislike "some" patents, and some is logically not all. I say dislike because "hate" is such a strong word and I hesitate to use it lightly.
Or we hate all patent lawsuits against companies we like?
Nope! Sometimes we dislike patent lawsuits against companies we like. Sometimes we dislike patent lawsuits against companies we don't like.

In short, for some of us: Whether we like/dislike a given patent lawsuit has nothing to do with whether we like/dislike a given company. It's just coincidental and holds no connection. Example: I don't care for Apple. But given the Apple vs. Psystar case and what Psystar seemed to be doing, it seemd to me Psystar (an entity I had never heard of prior to the lawsuit) was in the wrong. There was even one patent lawsuit targetting Microsoft I didn't like - even though I've disliked Microsoft since around 1989 or so. I even defended Microsoft a couple times in regards other discussions. And I really dislike Microsoft - not to the level of hate... but I definitely hold a strong dislike of Microsoft.

To put another way. For myself and many others (although I can't specifically identify with any certainty who):

    We don't hold our respective positions on a given lawsuit based on who we are a fan of.
It's about the facts and behaviors of what is occurring - not the particular people involved.
I thought you hate all patents?
And therein lies where your confusion stems from. You obviously misunderstand the position of at least some of us. Because of that misunderstanding, you're getting confused when we speak of things that seem to contradict that misunderstanding.

The first step will be to accept this is a group with all the dynamics of free groups. With many people and many different - and conflicting - opinions.

Unlike a number of other sites - we're not run by a "group mind" as some would like to think.

If you can accept that, then you should be able to come to grips with the different opinions being offered, the basis of those opinions and form your own opinion. That will agree with some of us and disagree with others. That's a completely acceptable and expected position to be in.

RAS

[ 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 )