Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
More ammunition why patents are EVIL
MSchantz:
I am a patent lawyer, but I'm not your patent lawyer. If I were, you'd know better.
The patent shown in the OP does not cover all dual-screen e-readers. The title of a patent does not define the rights of its owner. The abstract doesn't either. The drawings don't either.
There is no good reason to penalize inventors (be they individuals, small companies, or large companies) who do not have the resources to market their inventions. Nor to call them names.
Patents and parts of patents that cover (actually cover, not "are misinterpreted by ignorant people and tech media personalities to cover") prior art are already invalid. So:
* Talking about patenting breathing does not advance any legitimate discussion.
* Table-thumping about evil and despicableness sure appears foolish when the opinion is based on (at best) misinformation.
* Talking about forcing losing patent owners to (perhaps in the judge or jury's discretion) pay the accused infringer's attorney fees might actually address the problem.
If you don't know, ask. Don't be a windbag.
</rant>
JavaJones:
Now that we have a copyright lawyer in our midst, I certainly will ask! I'd like nothing more than to be better informed about the whole system and process. I've read quite a number of articles and even many of the basic laws behind it, as well as about the application process, but that still leaves a lot of questions and concerns. So thanks for joining the discussion, I hope you stick around. :)
- Oshyan
Renegade:
I am a patent lawyer, but I'm not your patent lawyer. If I were, you'd know better.
The patent shown in the OP does not cover all dual-screen e-readers. The title of a patent does not define the rights of its owner. The abstract doesn't either. The drawings don't either.
There is no good reason to penalize inventors (be they individuals, small companies, or large companies) who do not have the resources to market their inventions. Nor to call them names.
Patents and parts of patents that cover (actually cover, not "are misinterpreted by ignorant people and tech media personalities to cover") prior art are already invalid. So:
* Talking about patenting breathing does not advance any legitimate discussion.
* Table-thumping about evil and despicableness sure appears foolish when the opinion is based on (at best) misinformation.
* Talking about forcing losing patent owners to (perhaps in the judge or jury's discretion) pay the accused infringer's attorney fees might actually address the problem.
If you don't know, ask. Don't be a windbag.
</rant>
-MSchantz (August 19, 2010, 10:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
Welcome MShantz.
I'd be very interested to hear any further thoughts of yours. Here are a few of my own. (My post above would be understood by those that know me as a cynical statement. I will expand it here.)
Regarding:
Talking about patenting breathing does not advance any legitimate discussion.
-MSchantz (August 19, 2010, 10:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
It advances the discussion of silliness. :)
But it's still about as valid as many existing patents.
Amazon 1-click.
ORM (Object-Relational Modelling)
See here for a rant on ORM patents. It's simply obvious. Relational models. Object models. Functional models. Bridging the gap between them is obvious and trivial.
More on why software patents are a bad idea.
How does a patent get granted for trivial mathematical principles? It happens.
Have a look at this video for information on how adding names to a matrix gives you a patent. Some <expletive> has taken out a patent on Singular Value Decomposition and distances between vectors. Ahem... Patent #6,735,568.
This is very far from being a windbag. It's simply pointing out some complete idiocy. Like really... Basic, trivial mathematics get a patent? Somebody obviously didn't pay attention in class if they think that matrices are "non-obvious" or "novel". Others find it ridiculous as well. As do others.
Other views about how software patents are undesirable are here, here, here, and here, and that's not even a start.
Why can't so many companies use open source software? Because of potential patent issues down the road. Oracle is currently attacking Google over Android and its use of Java.
"Process" was added to what is patentable in 1952, prior to software. It was meant for industrial purposes.
In 1978 the Supreme Court ruled that non-novel mathematical algorithms are not patentable.
Breathing. Mathematical algorithms. They are both trivial.
You see, it's not that we're not advancing legitimate discussion... It's that the topic of discussion (software patents) is not legitimate.
SchoolDaGeek:
Doing that alone would probably result in the majority of lawyers being put out of a job. Immediately making the world a better place. ;)
-Deozaan (July 11, 2010, 05:40 AM)
--- End quote ---
Interestingly enough, Jesus said that you shall always have the poor with you, and it were the Lawyers of the Law that sentenced him to death.
zridling:
The current U.S. patent backlog is sitting at 1.26 million patents. There might actually be some innovation among those. But I assume 1.25 million of them are patents on things that aren't really patentable, e.g., "Brown-colored desks!" In 2010, Congress had the US Patent Office change the process from "First-to-file" to "First-to-invent." The lawyers are still enjoying that financial orgasm.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version