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
A Greedspeak Translation | 131 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Yes, it's not the competition demanded by the Constitution. ...nt
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 12:07 PM EDT
.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A Greedspeak Translation
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 12:59 PM EDT
The destruction of whole industries is an unfortunate but negligible side effect
of the enrichment possibilities promoted by competition between vultures.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Newegg Tells the FTC and DOJ How Patent Trolls Are Damaging Retailers ~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 05 2013 @ 09:47 PM EDT
Since patents are supposedly only granted for actual
inventions, any suit in court should start with the patent
holder providing a working model of the patent. If they
can't a) the patent is deemed invalid; b) they owe the other
side's legal fees; c) they owe back to anyone who licensed
the patent all fees collected, plus interest; and d) the now-
invalid patent is considered prior art for any future
patents.

jjs (not logged in)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Fix the system
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 06 2013 @ 12:54 PM EDT
Since the means of business for these trolls is to buy patents, make it less
interesting to buy them. For instance, each time a patent trades hands, the
validity term is cut in half, and an annual renewal fee (that should be there in
the first place) doubles. So original inventor gets 20 years. When he sells the
patent it is valid for 10 years. When that company goes bust and the patent
troll buys them for pennies on the dollar, the validity becomes 5 years. Each
from the start of the patent grant.

[ 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 )