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
Due diligence puts you out of business | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The solution begins when you do your due diligence
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 12:00 PM EDT
No, deeds aren't cryptic at all. Anyone with a few hours of training can learn
to read them. Any two people can read the same deed and agree which plot of
ground it denotes, and what the boundaries of that plot ARE.

And that is what is completely NOT true about software patents. Can you imagine
two large teams of lawyers arguing three weeks about whether a particular hiker
trespassed on a particular property? But that is not only conceivable but normal
for patent suits.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Due diligence puts you out of business
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 12:01 PM EDT
If you read a patent that a lawyer can claim in court is infringed by your
design you are in line for massively increased damages even though the patent is
worthless for the purpose of the making of your invention.

You can never find a software design in a patent and so none of them are any use
in determining whether your software design infringes the patented abstract
ideas and functions.

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

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

due diligence is impossible
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 03:49 PM EDT

Patents are granted at such an enormous rate that there aren't enough patent lawyers for every small business to check every potentially dangerous patent.

Go back to the purpose of patents: to increase the rate of technological purpose by rewarding inventors for disclosing how their inventions work. Patents do not disclose how inventions work in a way that is useful to other inventors. Patents do not reward inventors. Patents reward patent lawyers at the expense of everyone else, and everyone else has had enough.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Bad analogies prove nothing
Authored by: cjk fossman on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 04:29 PM EDT
You are conflating real property and software.

They are not similar.

[ 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 )