|
| Authored by: ukjaybrat on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 12:09 PM EDT |
i believe there's a difference between being 'pro-patent' and
thinking it's unfair that motorola spent untold amounts of
money to develop technologies only to have a judge come by and
say that Microsoft is "entitled" to those technologies for
less than pennies on the dollar where as companies like apple
can sue the shirt off your back because of rounded corners.
Not all patents are created equal, and a judge pretty much
just made it impossible to charge a "reasonable" rate for the
patents that actually DO something.
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 12:58 PM EDT |
Just against invalid patents.
Such as software patents.
Hardware patents are totally different.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
Well, I can't say for pj, but if she is thinking like I am, I
don't think Motorola patent should be worth money at all, but
if it should happens, should it happens, I would like it to
happens to all software patents at once, not just Motorola or
FRANDS.
What I wouldn't like to see is Microsoft paying Judge James
chosen price for Motorola's H.264 patent and Motorola paying 5
bucks per phone for a FAT32 like patent.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Say What?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 09:02 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
Is this the best you can do?
I'm starting to notice that when it comes to Microsoft-
related articles, the first comment (other than the usual
News, Comments, Off-topic, Comes threads) is always from
Anonymous who sounds like a Microsoft shill. Dude, wait at
least after another person with a proper Groklaw account
makes a comment... you would sound less suspicious that way.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: cpeterson on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
and is consistent on holding that "good patents" and
"patents on software" are, by definition, mutually exclusive
sets. I agree, but feel she's *way* too conservative. :)
I'm the one that says that since a patent will often pay far
more than a Nobel Prize, it should be at least as hard to
get a patent as a Nobel, and patents should not be granted
more often than Nobel Prizes. One per category per year
should be more than enough.
And no patent should be granted for anything until at least
two independent groups have publicly and spectacularly
failed to solve the problem set the patent would cover.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: alisonken1 on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 05:15 PM EDT |
... that was a quote that PJ copied from another organization
if I read the same thing you did.
You really should read the article correctly.
---
- Ken -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered John Doe^W^WLinux user #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
