With IP law being what it is these days, I'd be more surprised to hear a major manufacturer released a new product WITHOUT several suits being filed.

Microsoft has the patent on zeros and ones.

Is there any way to stop this nonsense via an antitrust suit?

Prior Art -

How is their definition of a "tile" any different than just a regular app window?
The BS with IP laws is just getting ridiculous.
If anything, Douglas Adams needs to sue every tablet maker!!

ha-ha-guy: One of the days a big company is going to snap and contract Blackwater to answer the patent suit. That will be an amusing day.

Blackwater had to change their name after all those pesky murders. They're Xe now.

Doesn't Moses have the patent claim to tablets?

Looks like AOL circa 1994. Or Active Desktop in 1997. Microsoft has enough prior art in their portfolio to blow this thing up without going to outside sources.

stonicus: If anything, Douglas Adams needs to sue every tablet maker!!

Hard to do when you've been dead for 11 years.

stonicus: Douglas Adams needs to sue every tablet maker!!

I think that would go against everything he stood for. Heh. Loved that man. Miss him dearly. His writing is completely unique. I wish there was more. I wish he had time to write more.

stonicus: How is their definition of a "tile" any different than just a regular app window?
The BS with IP laws is just getting ridiculous.
If anything, Douglas Adams needs to sue every tablet maker!!

Now, now, DON'T PANIC.

NutWrench: According to some folks over at SlashDot, Surfcast is a company that makes no products or sells any services. In other words, they're patent trolls, disguised as a "company." A quick visit to Surfcast's unimpressive website seems to confirm this. So I guess the question is: should a company that produces nothing of value be able to sue for "patent infringement?"

Yes. They own the patents. Perhaps the better question would be: "why hasn't congress fixed the royally fark'd up patent system?"

stonicus: How is their definition of a "tile" any different than just a regular app window?
The BS with IP laws is just getting ridiculous.
If anything, Douglas Adams needs to sue every tablet maker!!

Again I'm left to wonder aloud about the ramifications of complete abolition of patent law... I feel like a crazy person when I say it out loud, but then when I think about it the biggest problem I see is mega-corps leveraging economy of scale to produce a worse product at a much lower price point or even corner the market on some manufactured good or another. At least patent law allows a small timer to invent something like the slap chop and then sell off the idea to a manufacturer.

/How about locking down patent issuance to manufactured goods only? If you can't "build it", then it's not a patentable thing?

NutWrench: In other words, they're patent trolls, disguised as a "company."

I laughed when I looked at SurfCast's "about" page. Patent trolls with a founder who was editor of Red Herring Magazine. Surprised they also don't have a "Chief Executive Strawman" or something too.

gingerjet: NutWrench: According to some folks over at SlashDot, Surfcast is a company that makes no products or sells any services. In other words, they're patent trolls, disguised as a "company." A quick visit to Surfcast's unimpressive website seems to confirm this. So I guess the question is: should a company that produces nothing of value be able to sue for "patent infringement?"

Yes. They own the patents. Perhaps the better question would be: "why hasn't congress fixed the royally fark'd up patent system?"

They have! They reduced funding for the system and allowed companies who can afford it to claim to have done the patent office's work for them ahead of time, in return for faster patent granting. Fixed! And in no way does an overburdened patent office find it easier to just grant patents and make the courts work it out later!

sp86: ha-ha-guy: One of the days a big company is going to snap and contract Blackwater to answer the patent suit. That will be an amusing day.

Blackwater had to change their name after all those pesky murders. They're Xe now.

Actually Xe had to change their name after all those pesky murders. They're Academi now.

Tellingthem: Academi

Jesus Christ, I missed that one. What will they be next week?

Tellingthem: sp86: ha-ha-guy: One of the days a big company is going to snap and contract Blackwater to answer the patent suit. That will be an amusing day.

Blackwater had to change their name after all those pesky murders. They're Xe now.

Xe had to change their name after all those pesky murders. They're Academi now.

I should have refreshed the page before posting...

malfist: Tellingthem: sp86: ha-ha-guy: One of the days a big company is going to snap and contract Blackwater to answer the patent suit. That will be an amusing day.

Blackwater had to change their name after all those pesky murders. They're Xe now.

Xe had to change their name after all those pesky murders. They're Academi now.

I should have refreshed the page before posting...

It's alright guy, you're less out of the loop than I am.

doyner: I need to file a patent on suing for patent infringement.

Genius, pure genius! Of course, you would instantly become so amazing wealthy that you would own everything on the planet, plunging us into world-wide depression and most likely some form of zombie apocalypse but other than that, brilliant idea!

sp86: Tellingthem: Academi

Jesus Christ, I missed that one. What will they be next week?

If there is any justice at all, they'll be history.

gingerjet: NutWrench: According to some folks over at SlashDot, Surfcast is a company that makes no products or sells any services. In other words, they're patent trolls, disguised as a "company." A quick visit to Surfcast's unimpressive website seems to confirm this. So I guess the question is: should a company that produces nothing of value be able to sue for "patent infringement?"

Yes. They own the patents. Perhaps the better question would be: "why hasn't congress fixed the royally fark'd up patent system?"

Because they'd get sued?

Yeoman: sp86: Tellingthem: Academi

Jesus Christ, I missed that one. What will they be next week?

If there is any justice at all, they'll be history.

Amen to that.

stevejovi: stonicus: If anything, Douglas Adams needs to sue every tablet maker!!

Hard to do when you've been dead for 11 years.

You just made me sadface. :-(

Simultaneous Display of Multiple Information Sources.

How is interwebs formmed?

Eventually corporations are going to realize that it'll be far cheaper to employ a crack paramilitary commando squad than the hordes of lawyers it's currently using.

sp86: Tellingthem: Academi

Jesus Christ, I missed that one. What will they be next week?

Displace International.

BeesNuts: At least patent law allows a small timer to invent something like the slap chop and then sell off the idea to a manufacturer.

No, it doesn't. If the slap chop was anything any major manufacturer wanted, they'd just have strangled its inventor in the courts with an endless succession of lawyers and cases, all the while selling an inferior knockoff product themselves.

The patent system isn't about the small timer, and it hasn't been for decades. The patent system is now about persuading one megacorp not to encroach on another megacorp's territory, and about making the lawyers stinking rich.

phartman: gingerjet: NutWrench: According to some folks over at SlashDot, Surfcast is a company that makes no products or sells any services. In other words, they're patent trolls, disguised as a "company." A quick visit to Surfcast's unimpressive website seems to confirm this. So I guess the question is: should a company that produces nothing of value be able to sue for "patent infringement?"

Yes. They own the patents. Perhaps the better question would be: "why hasn't congress fixed the royally fark'd up patent system?"

Because they'd get sued?

I don't think you can sue congress for passing laws you don't like.

WhackingDay: Eventually corporations are going to realize that it'll be far cheaper to employ a crack paramilitary commando squad than the hordes of lawyers it's currently using.

Yeah! Shadowrun.

BeesNuts: How about locking down patent issuance to manufactured goods only? If you can't "build it", then it's not a patentable thing?

They technically are, hence all software patents say something like: "using a generic computing device with a screen" or, in this case: "A method executed by a device under the control of a program, said device including a memory for storing said program, said method comprising..."

FTA: "Tiles can be thought of as dynamically updating icons. A Tile is different from an icon because it can be both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information."

The Recycle bin in windows fits that description and has been around a lot longer than that patent. Prior Art, case dismissed. There are many other examples of the same concept. Printer icons changing to reflect availability, Yahoo Messenger icon changing to denote whether it's online or off, and a ton of others that have been in windows system tray since Win95.

MarkEC: FTA: "Tiles can be thought of as dynamically updating icons. A Tile is different from an icon because it can be both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information."

The Recycle bin in windows fits that description and has been around a lot longer than that patent. Prior Art, case dismissed. There are many other examples of the same concept. Printer icons changing to reflect availability, Yahoo Messenger icon changing to denote whether it's online or off, and a ton of others that have been in windows system tray since Win95.

I agree. How is it that cases like this don't just get summarily dismissed? How do these things get held up when it's SO obvious to everyone that the patent is not original?

stevejovi: stonicus: If anything, Douglas Adams needs to sue every tablet maker!!

Hard to do when you've been dead for 11 years.

For tax-reasons and to let his intellectual properties mature.

Man, round corners AND sharp corners are taken?

If someone patents chamfered corners, the rectangle industry is going to be Farked.

gweilo8888: BeesNuts: At least patent law allows a small timer to invent something like the slap chop and then sell off the idea to a manufacturer.

No, it doesn't. If the slap chop was anything any major manufacturer wanted, they'd just have strangled its inventor in the courts with an endless succession of lawyers and cases, all the while selling an inferior knockoff product themselves.

The patent system isn't about the small timer, and it hasn't been for decades. The patent system is now about persuading one megacorp not to encroach on another megacorp's territory, and about making the lawyers stinking rich.

Well, obviously it's been bought and paid for. but a *functional* patent system would indubitably protect the interests of smaller inventors.

But mainly, the crux of the issue I have with patent law, is that it fundamentally denies consumers any sort of choice. Allowing someone to carve out a patent with a 17 year shelf life in an industry like computing is insanity, obviously. And yeah, the issues with have with patent law enforcement are numerous and ridden with corruption...

So let's talk:

Abolish ALL patent law. Just boom. Wake up tomorrow and the idea had never existed.

Better world/Worse world?

I'm leaning towards better... but... idk. It's a very complicated territory to navigate, IMO. But I love talking about it.

f^ark patent trolls

cs30109: MarkEC: FTA: "Tiles can be thought of as dynamically updating icons. A Tile is different from an icon because it can be both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information."

The Recycle bin in windows fits that description and has been around a lot longer than that patent. Prior Art, case dismissed. There are many other examples of the same concept. Printer icons changing to reflect availability, Yahoo Messenger icon changing to denote whether it's online or off, and a ton of others that have been in windows system tray since Win95.

I agree. How is it that cases like this don't just get summarily dismissed? How do these things get held up when it's SO obvious to everyone that the patent is not original?

Lawyers need to get rich and have an easy life.

Off to patent "ruffly corners"