Theaetetus: He never conceded it, and still claims to have prior art "on his shelf" that would destroy the patent.
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.
Theaetetus: Do the needful: Drew, I wish you would have used One Click Purchases as an example of bad patents.Did you know that Oreilly took back his $10,000 bounty for prior art for the One-click patent, conceding that it couldn't be found and that the patent was likely valid?
ramblinwreck: Drew: DrBenway: Patent troll is not amused:Mouhamad A. NaboulsiLess than 5 minutes ago: It is very apparent that the speaker lives in the present and has no vision. Yes, sending news via e-mail is trivial "TODAY", but it was not when the patent was filed or issued.If they stopped letting retarded people on the Internet it would be emptyThat guy's pretty much all wrong. Sending news via email was some kind of innovation in 1999 eh? Right.Anyhow, I'm not anti-patent, inventors should be protected. When they actually invent something that isAnother gem of a comment from this guy. (new window)Also did a LinkedIn search on him. Odd work history... (new window)
Do the needful: My point of view is merely as a software developer. To me it is an issue of copyright vs. patents, and I feel strongly that you should not be allowed to patent a piece of software. Software is not something tangible like a door knob.
impaler: I'm an R&D engineer, and my company files for a lot of patents.
nickerj1: You mean the study that pulls numbers out of their ass?
Theaetetus: Do the needful: I don't have the ability to explain it, but if I code up a way for you to click a button and checkout and pay for your product, in my mind the only thing I can prevent other people from doing is copying my code line for line.Yes, and that means that, in reality, you can't do anything to protect your software against anyone but pirates and counterfeiters. If it's commercially worth it to me to copy, then I'll hire a team in Russia or India to reverse engineer it and code their own. It's not copied, so you have no copyright protections.Copyright is useful if only the original expression is valuable - a specific movie, a specific song, a specific program - which means usually it's going to be helpful only in protecting artistic works. Commercially valuable things, however, are valuable regardless of the specific expression, and in fact are more valuable when they can be used in myriad locations and environments. Copyright simply won't protect your work.
Do the needful: I had thought about holding my phone up near the speaker and offering to text it to you. It's scary that something that painfully obvious is overlooked. Sorry to hear about find out about your hearing loss. YouTube should put that software they have that searches out songs you have put in your video to at least try and voice to text subtitles for the hearing impaired. Do you have software that will hook into your soundcard stream? Then it could be used on any site.
CrispFlows: Most speech recognition programs typically needs to 'learn' a voice or accent to be more accurate to what they're saying. Even Google's youtube voice recognition program really sucks.try it some time, Go to youtube, pick a random video and click on the CC button and then click on the transcribe audio button. It's ridiculously inaccurate.We're at least 5 years or so away from a good voice recognition algorithm.Unless if there's something I'm not aware of and I'd like to know since it would be pretty relevant to my interests.
impaler: Bacontastesgood: Why do so many ACTUAL inventors hate the USPTO? Any theories on that? There must be a reason.I'm an R&D engineer, and my company files for a lot of patents. For us its a defense mechanism, because almost anything of any complexity you make will unintentionally violate some patent. This goes to the ease at which one can get a patent for something that is obvious. Now that lawyer above was incredulous that the VoIP patent was obvious. But the patent system isn't what ignorant laymen like him see to be obvious. For that one, it would be computer engineers like myself that get to make the judgement. Not only is that patent "obvious," I can not even think of any other way to do it. In fact, any design for VoIP that is NOT like that one, would be the non-obivous patentable innovation.Large companies use the patent system to squash competition. Large companies often fight each other, simultaneously claiming the other is violating their patent on the same technology. It's a tool for an innovation plutocracy.
Theaetetus: impaler: Now that lawyer above was incredulous that the VoIP patent was obvious. But the patent system isn't what ignorant laymen like him see to be obvious.If you use my handle, then it's easier for me to see replies and respond to them.You know, throughout this discussion, I've been quite cordial to everyone, even those I disagreed with. It's somewhat telling that you jump to name calling and insults
nickerj1: LoL. You don't want to make an inherency argument. You'll lose. I can think of another way to do it. Perform the IP conversion at any other network node other than the central office, like say.... the end user's device.
Theaetetus: The fact that you can't find any evidence from before the filing date of the patent and instead have to rely on your hindsight, more than a decade later, to claim it was supposedly obvious at the time doesn't make me an "ignorant layman".
Drew: Oh hey that is handy, I like that one
impaler: I didn't call you names. I said you were an ignorant layman when it comes to computer engineering. You are. When it comes to law I'm an ignorant layman.
impaler: The reason there's no prior art, is not because the idea was so novel, it's because the computational power and networking speed didn't exist yet.
Theaetetus: Yes, and that means that, in reality, you can't do anything to protect your software against anyone but pirates and counterfeiters. If it's commercially worth it to me to copy, then I'll hire a team in Russia or India to reverse engineer it and code their own. It's not copied, so you have no copyright protections.
impaler: Theaetetus: The fact that you can't find any evidence from before the filing date of the patent and instead have to rely on your hindsight, more than a decade later, to claim it was supposedly obvious at the time doesn't make me an "ignorant layman".The reason there's no prior art, is not because the idea was so novel, it's because the computational power and networking speed didn't exist yet.
Theaetetus: ... as noted above, Jules Verne is prior art for time machines, even though he had no "computational power and networking speed".
Rent Party: You do not need to show an implementation, or even that an implementation is possible in order to secure a patent.
impaler: Rent Party: You do not need to show an implementation, or even that an implementation is possible in order to secure a patent.And that right there is a big problem with patents.
Rent Party: Bezos is on record (last month's Wired Magazine interview) stating that he would happily give up that patent if the entire patent system went away. He feels the flaws in the system far outweigh the benefits. In short, he recognizes that it may be a valid patent, but that the idea of it is somewhat ridiculous, and it is the system, rather than the benefits of the system, that forces Amazon to file for these kinds of patents.
impaler: I'm an R&D engineer, and my company files for a lot of patents. For us its a defense mechanism
Rent Party: That may well be true, but it has nothing to do with your statement. It means that your statement about why there is no prior art for one-click is wrong.There is no prior art for one-click because no one had thought about it enough to even write it down.
Theaetetus: impaler: I didn't call you names. I said you were an ignorant layman when it comes to computer engineering. You are. When it comes to law I'm an ignorant layman.[snort]I'm not calling you an ignorant layman... I'm just saying that I've designed more complex and greater numbers of computer systems than you've ever touched.
impaler: Rent Party: That may well be true, but it has nothing to do with your statement. It means that your statement about why there is no prior art for one-click is wrong.There is no prior art for one-click because no one had thought about it enough to even write it down.Your point is true for one-click, but I was talking about VoIP.
Rent Party: I will admit not being up on the patents behind VoIP, but the evidence here shows that there isn't anything on record there, either.
Theaetetus: 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 exist. Those are just paraphrased descriptions of what the patent roughly describes, but that's like saying that Toyota's Prius transmission patents are really just patenting "a car, but with electricity!"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'.Nice paraphrased description. But no, that may be a rough statement of what the patent loosely describes, but it's not what the patent claims, which is:1. A method of routing a full duplex telephone call between a first telephone set and a second telephone set using a public computer network as at least part of a communication link connecting said first and second telephone sets, comprising the steps of:Method of connecting a phone call with a computer.receiving at a first computer network access port a first telephone call from a central office placed from said fist telephone set initiating said full duplex telephone call, said first telephone call specifying a telephone number of said second telephone set, without specifying additional telephone destinations;The caller's phone calls a phone number, and the call gets routed to a computerconverting data received from the central office to an Intenet protocol;The phone call is converted to data with one of those newfangled "modem" thingiesestablishing a communication link over said public computer network between said first computer network access port and a remote second computer network access port;The computer talks to another computer over a network.placing a second telephone call from said second computer network access port to said second telephone set using a PSTN;The second computer uses a modem thingy to call out to the destination numberconverting data received from the public computer network from Intenet protocol to a PSTN protocol; andThe modem demodulates the data stream back to the phone networkconnecting said first telephone call, said communication link and said second telephone call to thereby establish a telephone call between said first telephone set and said second telephone set.The phone call is now establishedThere's more limitations there than just "internet ...
If you like these links, you'll love
More funny for your money.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 25 2017 11:57:22
Runtime: 0.489 sec (488 ms)