If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TED)   Drew's TED talk is up - How I Beat a Patent Troll   (ted.com) divider line 335
    More: PSA, TED Talks, Drew Curtis  
•       •       •

18742 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Apr 2012 at 2:40 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



335 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-17 04:43:32 PM

namatad: nope
you could ALWAYS make your settlement EXCLUDE an NDA.
the companies settling want the NDA so they dont look stupid later and have to disclose the cost to their stockholders.
HELLO STOCKHOLDERS.
DEMAND that your company no longer settle anything which includes an NDA

shining light on the trolls is one way to kill them


Oh, no, I know that you don't have to have the NDA. Just NDAs don't usually come up when you're fighting something, as compared to when settling. So far as I understand it.
 
2012-04-17 04:44:04 PM

Blink: So.... I'm probably not understanding exactly what constitutes a non-disclosure agreement, but if all these patent cases have them -- how do we know it costs 2 million dollars to fight one?

For that matter, how do we know how much economic damage is wrought if monetary settlements are never provided (due to the NDA)?

As I understand it, Steve Jobs was a bit of a patent freak -- claiming ownership rights to shapes, colors and his morning craps. It does all sound quite stupid, and I'm sorry Drew had to deal with all of it (people suck) -- but I am curious how such specific statistics as Drew mentioned are generated.


Design patents are a bit different than technological patents. It's possible to patent things like the shape of a computer case (to use Apple's original iMac for an example), and then to sue people who make computers that look very similar to such (such a case happened).
 
2012-04-17 04:44:19 PM

Drew: Oznog: DrySocket: Flab: Smeggy Smurf: Fight a patent troll for $2 million

or

Hire a couple of veterans who need money to hunt down and kill the trolls for $500K each.

Option #2 would have been more effective. Dead trolls troll no more.

From what I remember from the threads when Drew first metnioned the lawsuit, since Gooseberry Natural Resources LLC was incorporated in Delaware, it was imposssible to hunt down the people behind it.

Gooseberry is a shell company for Intellectual Ventures, Nathan Myrvholds little "innovation" company.

Im actually a little surprised that Gooseberry rolled over so easily. Im sure there is a lot more to the story than what was explained in 6 minutes, but this is the first time I think ive ever seen one of these groups decline an NDA.

Drew said their address was a strip mall which had nothing to do with their physical address.
They attack from the shadows, like legal ninjitsu.

This is correct

Last year at Ted, Matt Cutts and I actually tracked down Myrvholds to ask him if he owned the thing. He didn't know, but he was pretty startled by the question


though it is interesting that they settled a month or two after that...
 
2012-04-17 04:44:43 PM
Someone sued Drew over the practice of allowing mods to troll threads with alt accounts?
 
2012-04-17 04:45:45 PM
Drew! you're my hero, that was AWESOME, but I really believe the best way to beat trolls like this is with a nail studded plank.
 
2012-04-17 04:46:12 PM

Earguy: funk_soul_bubby: DrBenway: Mouhamad A. Naboulsi

Is that guy serious with this web site?

Oh good lord. And do you think he paid royalties for use of The Doors' song?


Maybe he has a patent on websites designed in the 1980's.
 
2012-04-17 04:46:23 PM

Drew: Thanks! I think the main point of confusion here is that I'm distilling the experience of a patent troll lawsuit, not a normal patent lawsuit (which would work out pretty much how you describe it - this is a different animal). And like I said, I had six minutes to talk to a non-legal audience so a lot of specifics got dropped. I wouldn't ever deign to tell a room full of attorneys how the process works. The strategy still holds however


Do I remember you telling me about a little change to the law? Something about a shell company losing and having no money, the attorneys get to pony up the bill?
 
2012-04-17 04:49:59 PM

Blink: So.... I'm probably not understanding exactly what constitutes a non-disclosure agreement, but if all these patent cases have them -- how do we know it costs 2 million dollars to fight one?

For that matter, how do we know how much economic damage is wrought if monetary settlements are never provided (due to the NDA)?

As I understand it, Steve Jobs was a bit of a patent freak -- claiming ownership rights to shapes, colors and his morning craps. It does all sound quite stupid, and I'm sorry Drew had to deal with all of it (people suck) -- but I am curious how such specific statistics as Drew mentioned are generated.


I think you meant this.

/someone will try to steal your shiat
fayinc.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-04-17 04:51:22 PM
Drew, did someone suggest you to TED to be a speaker, or did you suggest yourself? What was it like working with the TED speaker team?
 
2012-04-17 04:52:21 PM
Did anyone catch the TED comment section? Clearly, Mouhamad A. Naboulsi missed the whole point and got all butt hurt. His profile should be trolled :p I mean, who ends with "When my patents are issued, there will not be any settlements. Infringes will pay per copy. Laugh at that F,G,T,N,M,B,M,V,A,C,Z,A. See you guys in courts in Detroit.." What an a$$
 
2012-04-17 04:53:30 PM

Drew: I respectfully disagree...


moviesmedia.ign.com
...I prefer the stick you only have to beat a patent troll with once
 
2012-04-17 04:54:12 PM

Drew: Msol: The weird bluescreen behind Drew was strange, I was actually surprised there was an audience. The whole thing looked a little fake.

it was actually shot on the same stage as the moon landings


That's great and all but did the holographic tupac make his presence?
 
2012-04-17 04:54:27 PM

Theaetetus: Drew: I was never quite clear on what the deal was here. Perhaps you could help explain how it works on the other end. Basically, we didn't infringe on this patent. I realize the courts require evidence of infringement, but apparently they don't up front because the troll didn't provide any. They just said "Fark's infringing and needs to cease immediately" without providing anything else in the complaint.

Yeah, nothing more than an accusation is required up front to file the suit. But similarly, your answer to the complaint requires nothing more than "Fark, Inc. denies the allegations in the complaint, requests a jury trial, and suggests the plaintiff go pound sand." Take a look at Facebook's answer in the Yahoo-Facebook dispute, for example (they went on to counterclaim infringement of 10 of their patents, but the answer in the first half is basically a blanket denial of everything).
The court won't order an injunction, based on the complaint and answer, however. The plaintiff would have to move for summary judgement and the injunction, and at that point, they have to provide sufficient evidence, or the court can tell them to pound sand.

Think of the complaint as being like a criminal indictment... The DA can call you a murderer all they want, but you don't have to respond with anything more than "nuh huh" until they've provided some evidence.


That's still batshiat stupid though if you have to essentially plead guilty or not guilty before you know what they're talking about. I mean, imagine them suing a huge outfit like google with this patent claim without pointing to exactly where the infringement was taking place. Would they have to comb their entire web ecosystem before they could decide they needed to settle or go to trial?
 
2012-04-17 04:56:39 PM
speaking of trolls, how did drew get on my ignore list again??
 
2012-04-17 04:56:50 PM

Geotpf: ohknaks: Theaetetus: Secondly, the "frivolous" patents you mention at the beginning - phone calls, but on the internet; or radio, but for cell phones - don't actually exis

I present to you patent 6,243,373 (new window) "Method and apparatus for implementing a computer network/Internet telephone system,", which is pretty much 'phone calls, but on the internet'.

The thing is, under the current patent system, the first person to do that (or basically anything else) earns the right to file a patent for it. That's how patents work-that's the whole point of them.


That exact patent is part of the EFF's patent busting project. See here for an article on the issue:

Link (new window)
 
2012-04-17 04:57:34 PM
Drew, at the beginning i could see your nervousness a bit. You settled into the talk very well though. Well farking done, man. Well farking done.

But geez, the suit and the cheek microphones felt so Steve-Jobs-iphone-talk smug, but in a good way, haha.

/was good seeing you again at the Lex comic convention last month
 
2012-04-17 04:57:41 PM

Theaetetus: Drew: I was never quite clear on what the deal was here. Perhaps you could help explain how it works on the other end. Basically, we didn't infringe on this patent. I realize the courts require evidence of infringement, but apparently they don't up front because the troll didn't provide any. They just said "Fark's infringing and needs to cease immediately" without providing anything else in the complaint.

Yeah, nothing more than an accusation is required up front to file the suit. But similarly, your answer to the complaint requires nothing more than "Fark, Inc. denies the allegations in the complaint, requests a jury trial, and suggests the plaintiff go pound sand." Take a look at Facebook's answer in the Yahoo-Facebook dispute, for example (they went on to counterclaim infringement of 10 of their patents, but the answer in the first half is basically a blanket denial of everything).
The court won't order an injunction, based on the complaint and answer, however. The plaintiff would have to move for summary judgement and the injunction, and at that point, they have to provide sufficient evidence, or the court can tell them to pound sand.

Think of the complaint as being like a criminal indictment... The DA can call you a murderer all they want, but you don't have to respond with anything more than "nuh huh" until they've provided some evidence.


The bold part is the problem, Theaetetus. As an attorney, you know that Summary Judgment isn't something that comes immediately after the Complaint/Answer. It is at the end of a very long, very expensive road called discovery. Discovery costs millions in cases like this; the hiring of experts, the interrogatories, the depositions... millions of dollars before the defendant can actually say, "See your honor - they got nothing. Make them show SOMETHING or let us go home."

It is rare to see the courts entertain a judgment based solely on the complaint. "Failure to state a cause of action" just isn't something most attorneys try. They should. Perhaps that might have helped Drew's case. But saying "Summary Judgment" will save Fark is exactly the problem that Drew has... it would. AFTER he spent millions on discovery.
 
2012-04-17 04:57:44 PM

pushpinder: Did anyone catch the TED comment section? Clearly, Mouhamad A. Naboulsi missed the whole point and got all butt hurt. His profile should be trolled :p I mean, who ends with "When my patents are issued, there will not be any settlements. Infringes will pay per copy. Laugh at that F,G,T,N,M,B,M,V,A,C,Z,A. See you guys in courts in Detroit.." What an a$$


LOL
I was too lazy to login ... but yah we should totalllly infringe on his non-patents
 
2012-04-17 05:00:43 PM
did somebody say trolls?

thechive.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-04-17 05:01:06 PM
http://www.icallsafe.com/ is the TED talk trolls webside (Mouhamad A. Naboulsi, CEO and Inventor). I love the graphic on their site: <img src="http://www.icallsafe.com/images/new_pa1.jpg" width="640" height="264">
 
2012-04-17 05:02:17 PM

Kipple: Yeah, nothing more than an accusation is required up front to file the suit...

The bold part is the problem, Theaetetus. As an attorney, you know that Summary Judgment isn't something that comes immediately after the Complaint/Answer. It is at the end of a very long, very expensive road called discovery. Discovery costs millions in cases like this; the hiring of experts, the interrogatories, the depositions... millions of dollars before the defendant can actually say, "See your honor - they got nothing. Make them show SOMETHING or let us go home."

It is rare to see the courts entertain a judgment based solely on the complaint. "Failure to state a cause of action" just isn't something most attorneys try. They should. Perhaps that might have helped Drew's case. But saying "Summary Judgment" will save Fark is exactly the problem that Drew has... it would. AFTER he spent millions on discovery.


Well, except that Drew wouldn't have to spend a penny on his own discovery if he doesn't want to, and if you're suggesting that defendants shouldn't have to respond to discovery requests or that plaintiffs should have all of their information in hand prior to filing the complaint, then I have to disagree... Unless we're talking corporate espionage, the court's subpoena power is the only way to get a lot of the information. Removing discovery would make it easy for large corporations to hide their internal memos discussing what screw ups they've done.
 
2012-04-17 05:03:07 PM

Roman Fyseek: Drew: Thanks! I think the main point of confusion here is that I'm distilling the experience of a patent troll lawsuit, not a normal patent lawsuit (which would work out pretty much how you describe it - this is a different animal). And like I said, I had six minutes to talk to a non-legal audience so a lot of specifics got dropped. I wouldn't ever deign to tell a room full of attorneys how the process works. The strategy still holds however

Do I remember you telling me about a little change to the law? Something about a shell company losing and having no money, the attorneys get to pony up the bill?


yes - problem is, getting to that point is dangerous for a company that can't afford to lose everything to get to that stage
 
2012-04-17 05:07:04 PM
Kipple: The bold part is the problem, Theaetetus. As an attorney, you know that Summary Judgment isn't something that comes immediately after the Complaint/Answer. It is at the end of a very long, very expensive road called discovery. Discovery costs millions in cases like this; the hiring of experts, the interrogatories, the depositions... millions of dollars before the defendant can actually say, "See your honor - they got nothing. Make them show SOMETHING or let us go home."

Correct - if we could have done that from the get go (I tried), the lawsuit would have been over instantly. The important part of the patent is the phrase "news release", which means only "press release" (and the patent itself even gave a nod to this definition).

The patent troll did not have evidence of infringement because Fark didn't infringe. They read their own patent wrong and assumed "news release" was "news". Yet they filed anyhow, and got 7 of the 9 defendants, none of whom infringed either, to write a check
 
2012-04-17 05:07:46 PM

Drew: Roman Fyseek: Drew: Thanks! I think the main point of confusion here is that I'm distilling the experience of a patent troll lawsuit, not a normal patent lawsuit (which would work out pretty much how you describe it - this is a different animal). And like I said, I had six minutes to talk to a non-legal audience so a lot of specifics got dropped. I wouldn't ever deign to tell a room full of attorneys how the process works. The strategy still holds however

Do I remember you telling me about a little change to the law? Something about a shell company losing and having no money, the attorneys get to pony up the bill?

yes - problem is, getting to that point is dangerous for a company that can't afford to lose everything to get to that stage


The other change that should help is that trolls now have to sue everyone individually... No more single suits against Apple, Microsoft, Google, Toshiba, Drew Curtis, Samsung, etc. as joint defendants, unless they actually were legitimately collaborating on something.
That significantly raises their costs, and makes it tougher for the court to say "Drew's in Kentucky, Microsoft is in Seattle... I guess East Texas is a good place for a suit since it's halfway between."
 
2012-04-17 05:08:43 PM

Drew: The patent troll did not have evidence of infringement because Fark didn't infringe. They read their own patent wrong and assumed "news release" was "news". Yet they filed anyhow, and got 7 of the 9 defendants, none of whom infringed either, to write a check


You sure none of the others do blast email press releases? ;)
 
2012-04-17 05:10:06 PM
There's a show on ABC called Shark Tank in Canada it's called Dragons Den. About a month ago a guy came on and proudly admitted he was a patent troll & wanted X amount of $$ for whatever all the Sharks except for the FUBU guy are in high tech. I thought Mark Cuban was going to rip the guys head off even the FUBU guy it turns out had been sued by this guy for having a hole in clothing for ear buds.
 
2012-04-17 05:10:44 PM

GooberMcFly: Drew: Sending news via email was some kind of innovation in 1999 eh? Right.

Isn't that how you started?

You should counter-sue!


Yeah we actually had prior art - had this actually been a patent that applied to us
 
2012-04-17 05:11:03 PM

ConConHead: Relevant to patent troll suits

Nest slams back at Honeywell over thermostat patents (new window)


Well there is a reason most thermostats are not dial shaped, honeywell did patent a ton of shiat years ago and it has more relevance than most of these process invention lawsuits being filed since its an actual design.
 
2012-04-17 05:11:28 PM

Theaetetus: Drew: The patent troll did not have evidence of infringement because Fark didn't infringe. They read their own patent wrong and assumed "news release" was "news". Yet they filed anyhow, and got 7 of the 9 defendants, none of whom infringed either, to write a check

You sure none of the others do blast email press releases? ;)


pretty sure. Hell if I know tho. I know for sure we don't! Heh
 
2012-04-17 05:12:01 PM

Theaetetus: Kipple: Yeah, nothing more than an accusation is required up front to file the suit...

The bold part is the problem, Theaetetus. As an attorney, you know that Summary Judgment isn't something that comes immediately after the Complaint/Answer. It is at the end of a very long, very expensive road called discovery. Discovery costs millions in cases like this; the hiring of experts, the interrogatories, the depositions... millions of dollars before the defendant can actually say, "See your honor - they got nothing. Make them show SOMETHING or let us go home."

It is rare to see the courts entertain a judgment based solely on the complaint. "Failure to state a cause of action" just isn't something most attorneys try. They should. Perhaps that might have helped Drew's case. But saying "Summary Judgment" will save Fark is exactly the problem that Drew has... it would. AFTER he spent millions on discovery.

Well, except that Drew wouldn't have to spend a penny on his own discovery if he doesn't want to, and if you're suggesting that defendants shouldn't have to respond to discovery requests or that plaintiffs should have all of their information in hand prior to filing the complaint, then I have to disagree... Unless we're talking corporate espionage, the court's subpoena power is the only way to get a lot of the information. Removing discovery would make it easy for large corporations to hide their internal memos discussing what screw ups they've done.


Drew does have to spend the money - He has to hire an attorney to even file the Answer for goodness sakes. Lawyers are not free - the simple act of filing the lawsuit means Drew owes. And patent attorneys are not cheap. As well, saying Drew doesn't have to spend money on his own discovery is silly as well - of COURSE he does. He has to prepare his case, he has to pay his attorney. All that costs. Yeah, maybe he won't actually try to find out who owns the company, who is behind this, what their patent entails, etc. But... that is kinda slitting your throat. You gotta defend yourself on all levels. And that costs money.

And I agree as well that the Plaintiff shouldn't have to have every duck in a row before he starts. That is exactly why you don't see many attorneys try for the "failure to state a claim" motion. Most judges will give a plaintiff ample time to demand discovery in order to prepare their cases. Maybe it could have helped Drew - I doubt it. But nothing else would have gotten him to the "No, I didn't. Prove it." level of ending the case faster...

Which - all proves exactly what I said - Drew is only going to "win" once he hits the Summary Judgment Stage - and in order to get there, you gotta spend cash. Lots and lots of cash.
 
2012-04-17 05:13:17 PM

pushpinder: http://www.icallsafe.com/ is the TED talk trolls webside (Mouhamad A. Naboulsi, CEO and Inventor). I love the graphic on their site: <img src="http://www.icallsafe.com/images/new_pa1.jpg" width="640" height="264">


I wonder if he properly licensed those images.
 
2012-04-17 05:14:24 PM

Theaetetus: Oh, I agree, the idea of doing so was pretty obvious. The idea of time travel was pretty obvious to Jules Verne, and the idea of teleportation was pretty obvious to Gene Roddenberry. You couldn't get a patent that just claimed "time travel" or "teleportation" or "using the internet for regular telephony," because those are obvious. The specific implementation (or any implementation, for the first two) may not be obvious at all, however... which is why it took us 20 years to get to VoIP from IP.


And what the patent describes is not only "obvious," but is about the only physical way to connect a telephone through an IP network to a PSTN network. You have to have the phone connect to the IP network. It has to be full-duplex. It has to convert voice to packets and vice versa. It has to send those packets to the PSTN and vice versa. It has to transmit PSTN control protocols.

And the reason it took us "20 years to get to VoIP" (depending on your start date), has more to do with Internet speeds (bandwidth and latency) than anything to do with that obvious patent. They don't even mention any use of a discrete cosine transform for compression - which goes a lot further to making VoIP work than anything in that patent.
 
2012-04-17 05:14:25 PM

Drew: The patent troll did not have evidence of infringement because Fark didn't infringe. They read their own patent wrong and assumed "news release" was "news". Yet they filed anyhow, and got 7 of the 9 defendants, none of whom infringed either, to write a check


To be fair, no one knows if they wrote a check as they're all under NDA.
 
2012-04-17 05:14:35 PM

Theaetetus: The other change that should help is that trolls now have to sue everyone individually... No more single suits against Apple, Microsoft, Google, Toshiba, Drew Curtis, Samsung, etc. as joint defendants, unless they actually were legitimately collaborating on something.
That significantly raises their costs, and makes it tougher for the court to say "Drew's in Kentucky, Microsoft is in Seattle... I guess East Texas is a good place for a suit since it's halfway between."


Oh hey that is handy, I like that one
 
2012-04-17 05:16:00 PM

cmunic8r99: [dumbimages.net image 521x79]


Is that short for "Stormageddon"?
 
2012-04-17 05:22:23 PM

Theaetetus: Oh, I don't know about that... Go back to 1995 and ask someone to connect their phone to the internet. Most of them would answer that their phone already is their connection to the internet, that's why their modem makes wooshing and beeping noises and they can't get phone calls at the same time.


Yes, but patents don't pertain to laymen standards. It's if "the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."
 
2012-04-17 05:25:04 PM

pushpinder: Did anyone catch the TED comment section? Clearly, Mouhamad A. Naboulsi missed the whole point and got all butt hurt. His profile should be trolled :p I mean, who ends with "When my patents are issued, there will not be any settlements. Infringes will pay per copy. Laugh at that F,G,T,N,M,B,M,V,A,C,Z,A. See you guys in courts in Detroit.." What an a$$


Someone needs to point out to the guy that the "product" he's hawking infringes on Microsoft and Ford technology - he's made what amounts to the SYNC system Ford released on the 2008 Focus.
 
2012-04-17 05:26:23 PM
www.newyorker.com
 
2012-04-17 05:29:50 PM

impaler: Theaetetus: Oh, I don't know about that... Go back to 1995 and ask someone to connect their phone to the internet. Most of them would answer that their phone already is their connection to the internet, that's why their modem makes wooshing and beeping noises and they can't get phone calls at the same time.

Yes, but patents don't pertain to laymen standards. It's if "the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."


I never said I was referring to a layman... If you have some evidence that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time, then by all means, cite it... The EFF is looking for just such evidence.

But simply saying it's obvious is just a conclusion. It'd be like saying Zimmerman's a murderer. That's just the conclusion - unless the DA shows some evidence and the jury agrees, then it'd be just as wrong to throw him in jail as it would be to throw out the patent.
 
2012-04-17 05:46:13 PM
Cool, thanks for posting this, Drew. I had wanted to see it after you talked about it at Vegas.
 
2012-04-17 05:48:53 PM

pushpinder: http://www.icallsafe.com/ is the TED talk trolls webside (Mouhamad A. Naboulsi, CEO and Inventor). I love the graphic on their site: <img src="http://www.icallsafe.com/images/new_pa1.jpg" width="640" height="264">


I hate you for making me go to his terribad website
 
2012-04-17 05:49:36 PM

Praise Cheesus: pushpinder: Did anyone catch the TED comment section? Clearly, Mouhamad A. Naboulsi missed the whole point and got all butt hurt. His profile should be trolled :p I mean, who ends with "When my patents are issued, there will not be any settlements. Infringes will pay per copy. Laugh at that F,G,T,N,M,B,M,V,A,C,Z,A. See you guys in courts in Detroit.." What an a$$

Someone needs to point out to the guy that the "product" he's hawking infringes on Microsoft and Ford technology - he's made what amounts to the SYNC system Ford released on the 2008 Focus.


My guess is that that is why he is pissed. He is claiming he started development in the 90's and had a working prototype by 2002, although he doesn't say when he patented it. And, if they did rip him off, it wouldn't exactly be the first time the automakers legitimately infringed on a patent.

I think he loses over prior art though. I don't see anything in his idea that wasn't in fiction for decades, and I doubt anything in his method of implementation is new or unique.
 
2012-04-17 05:49:47 PM

Flab: Too short.


And just look at those sharp knees.
 
2012-04-17 05:50:05 PM

Theaetetus: I never said I was referring to a layman... If you have some evidence that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time, then by all means, cite it... The EFF is looking for just such evidence.

But simply saying it's obvious is just a conclusion. It'd be like saying Zimmerman's a murderer. That's just the conclusion - unless the DA shows some evidence and the jury agrees, then it'd be just as wrong to throw him in jail as it would be to throw out the patent.



How about this. People have been carrying voice over the internet since 1973:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_IP#Historical_milestones

Voice over frame relay standards were made in 1992. It was quite obvious by 1995.
 
2012-04-17 05:51:03 PM

Theaetetus: I never said I was referring to a layman... If you have some evidence that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time, then by all means, cite it... The EFF is looking for just such evidence.

But simply saying it's obvious is just a conclusion. It'd be like saying Zimmerman's a murderer. That's just the conclusion - unless the DA shows some evidence and the jury agrees, then it'd be just as wrong to throw him in jail as it would be to throw out the patent.


Ask a random computer engineer to design a VoIP system. I doubt it will vary much from that patent.
 
2012-04-17 05:52:30 PM

Drew:

If they stopped letting retarded people on the Internet it would be empty


Hence, the Fark.com business model.

/This guy knows what he's talking about.
 
2012-04-17 05:52:44 PM
This thread is proceeding in a very satisfactory manner.

Carry on
 
2012-04-17 05:56:13 PM

impaler: Theaetetus: I never said I was referring to a layman... If you have some evidence that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time, then by all means, cite it... The EFF is looking for just such evidence.

But simply saying it's obvious is just a conclusion. It'd be like saying Zimmerman's a murderer. That's just the conclusion - unless the DA shows some evidence and the jury agrees, then it'd be just as wrong to throw him in jail as it would be to throw out the patent.

Ask a random computer engineer to design a VoIP system. I doubt it will vary much from that patent.


Ask a random mechanical engineer to design an internal combustion engine. I doubt it will vary much from any of the revolutionary designs from the late 19th century.
Respectfully, you still don't get it... You're suggesting that, to show something was obvious back in 1995, we ask some random engineer now, in 2012, who has been studying that material for at least some portion of the past 17 years, who has learned on textbooks that describe it, has read whitepapers by the inventors of that patent, etc.
You're absolutely right - it may be obvious now. That says nothing about whether it was obvious then, or whether it's only obvious now because of the inventor's work.
 
2012-04-17 05:57:13 PM

ohknaks: Theaetetus: I never said I was referring to a layman... If you have some evidence that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time, then by all means, cite it... The EFF is looking for just such evidence.

But simply saying it's obvious is just a conclusion. It'd be like saying Zimmerman's a murderer. That's just the conclusion - unless the DA shows some evidence and the jury agrees, then it'd be just as wrong to throw him in jail as it would be to throw out the patent.


How about this. People have been carrying voice over the internet since 1973:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_IP#Historical_milestones

Voice over frame relay standards were made in 1992. It was quite obvious by 1995.


And if he claimed "carrying voice over the internet" or "voice over frame relay" then you'd be right, but he's not. Proving that something else had been done doesn't make this patent invalid.
 
2012-04-17 05:57:19 PM
Drew, since you're here, can I have a free month of TF?
 
Displayed 50 of 335 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report