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.

(C|Net)   Microsoft being sued by company that holds the world wide exclusive rights to rectangles with sharp corners   (news.cnet.com) divider line 152
    More: Sick, Windows Live Tiles, Windows Phone 7, Microsoft, Microsoft Surface  
•       •       •

22720 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Oct 2012 at 3:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-31 01:12:28 PM  
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.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-31 01:17:55 PM  
Apparently both companies have patents on technology I saw in the "tiling window manager" for the X Window System c. 1990. It was an annoying window manager because it refused to let windows overlap.

If they both have patents each should pay each other a trillion dollars.
 
2012-10-31 02:06:57 PM  
Looks like Emacs from the 1970s.
 
2012-10-31 02:25:38 PM  
♫ I sue you. You sue me.
We all sue, so easily.
Too easily, to let it go.
I'll sue you, and take all your dough ♫
 
2012-10-31 02:43:38 PM  
I need to file a patent on suing for patent infringement.
 
2012-10-31 03:03:05 PM  
Microsoft has the patent on zeros and ones.
 
2012-10-31 03:05:59 PM  
Is there any way to stop this nonsense via an antitrust suit?
 
2012-10-31 03:06:02 PM  
Microsoft is suing itself?

blog.geeksaresexytech.netdna-cdn.com
 
2012-10-31 03:06:16 PM  
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.
 
2012-10-31 03:08:08 PM  
Prior Art -

upload.wikimedia.org

riannanworld.typepad.com
 
2012-10-31 03:09:55 PM  
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!!
 
2012-10-31 03:11:23 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 03:11:56 PM  
Doesn't Moses have the patent claim to tablets?
 
2012-10-31 03:12:40 PM  
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.
 
2012-10-31 03:14:51 PM  
 
2012-10-31 03:15:30 PM  

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


Hard to do when you've been dead for 11 years.
 
2012-10-31 03:16:07 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 03:16:24 PM  
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?"
 
2012-10-31 03:17:36 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 03:18:10 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 03:22:03 PM  

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?"
 
2012-10-31 03:23:55 PM  

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?
 
2012-10-31 03:24:43 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 03:26:04 PM  

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!
 
2012-10-31 03:26:36 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 03:27:12 PM  

Tellingthem: Academi


Jesus Christ, I missed that one. What will they be next week?
 
2012-10-31 03:28:57 PM  

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...
 
2012-10-31 03:30:42 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 03:30:46 PM  

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!
 
2012-10-31 03:33:36 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 03:34:10 PM  

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?
 
2012-10-31 03:35:13 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 03:36:36 PM  

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. :-(
 
2012-10-31 03:38:16 PM  
Simultaneous Display of Multiple Information Sources.

How is interwebs formmed?
 
2012-10-31 03:38:49 PM  
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.
 
2012-10-31 03:39:59 PM  

sp86: Tellingthem: Academi

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


Displace International.
 
2012-10-31 03:40:50 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 03:41:33 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 03:41:34 PM  

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 are to busy trying to make tax dollars their dollars?
 
2012-10-31 03:44:07 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 03:47:35 PM  

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..."
 
2012-10-31 03:49:27 PM  
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.
 
2012-10-31 03:53:06 PM  

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?
 
2012-10-31 03:53:20 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 03:54:40 PM  
Man, round corners AND sharp corners are taken?

If someone patents chamfered corners, the rectangle industry is going to be Farked.
 
2012-10-31 03:58:48 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 03:58:59 PM  
fark patent trolls
 
2012-10-31 04:03:03 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-31 04:05:19 PM  

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?"


Companies like MIT, Georgia Tech, Johns Hopkins, or Cornell University, who do millions upon millions of dollars of research funded by patent license fees?
 
2012-10-31 04:09:31 PM  
Off to patent "ruffly corners"
 
2012-10-31 04:10:43 PM  

stonicus: How is their definition of a "tile" any different than just a regular app window?


From the patent:
A tile is different from a window because a tile will typically be smaller in size, allowing the user to view multiple tiles simultaneously if desired.

A tile provides an at-a-glance view of the current status of the program or file associated with it but does not necessarily have the large number of active areas associated with windows such as title bar, menu bar and scroll bars. Therefore tiles lead to a reduction in clutter on the display screen because many tiles may be displayed simultaneously without overlapping with one another in the way that windows must necessarily do.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-31 04:10:54 PM  
Tiles can be thought of as dynamically updating icons.

Like the "active icon" of xterm in the 1980s.  It shrunk the font size to 1 or 2 pixels when iconified so the icon was a functioning minature terminal.
 
2012-10-31 04:14:26 PM  

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.


The recycle bin doesn't provide a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information (its contents), but rather merely indicates the presence or absence of underlying information, while remaining agnostic to the substance of that information.

But that's just the description. To invalidate a patent, you have to go to the claims, and specifically, you need to find one or more pieces of prior art that, alone or in combination, disclose, teach, or suggest each and every element in the claims.
Sure, the recycle bin is prior art - it's in the same art, and it's prior. But does it teach every element in the claims? If not, that's not sufficient to dismiss the case.
 
2012-10-31 04:16:26 PM  

NutznGum: That's nothing, Apple just patented displaying a map on a mobile device. I guess that's one way of fixing Apple Maps.....


No, they didn't. And since "Google Maps for Mobile (beta)" was cited as prior art, it couldn't infringe that patent, at least in its 2006 form.
 
2012-10-31 04:17:35 PM  
Patent Trolls versus Microsoft.

Wow. I really gotta cheer Microsoft on this one. The patent trolls really don't know what they're getting into with these guys.

leavinglaw.files.wordpress.com

Microsoft has a direct in with Satan, I hear. It's how they got Windows ME to release.
 
2012-10-31 04:18:12 PM  

sp86: Tellingthem: Academi

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


Dunces With Guns
 
2012-10-31 04:18:31 PM  

BeesNuts: 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.


You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.
 
2012-10-31 04:19:57 PM  

Theaetetus: NutznGum: That's nothing, Apple just patented displaying a map on a mobile device. I guess that's one way of fixing Apple Maps.....

No, they didn't. And since "Google Maps for Mobile (beta)" was cited as prior art, it couldn't infringe that patent, at least in its 2006 form.


Actually, they did.
 
2012-10-31 04:20:18 PM  

Theaetetus: 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?"

Companies like MIT, Georgia Tech, Johns Hopkins, or Cornell University, who do millions upon millions of dollars of research funded by patent license fees?


Patent holding shell companies are a hell of a lot different than research universities, and it would be very easy to make the distinction legally if you wanted to try to fix the patent system. For example, you could define your non-practicing entity as a, "for profit entity that..." and you're done.
 
2012-10-31 04:21:12 PM  

Antimatter: BeesNuts: 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.

You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.


Nah, you just keep everything as trade secrets, invented for your wealthy aristocratic patron. And progress will continue - why, within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings in Europe will own them.
 
2012-10-31 04:25:21 PM  

NutznGum: Theaetetus: NutznGum: That's nothing, Apple just patented displaying a map on a mobile device. I guess that's one way of fixing Apple Maps.....

No, they didn't. And since "Google Maps for Mobile (beta)" was cited as prior art, it couldn't infringe that patent, at least in its 2006 form.

Actually, they did.


No, actually, they didn't.
First, as I said, ""Google Maps for Mobile (beta)" was cited as prior art." (it's in the section under the subheading "other references") so therefore the patent can't possibly claim "displaying a map on a mobile device".
Second, the patent doesn't claim "displaying a map on a mobile device". Instead, it claims:
1. A method, comprising: at a computing device with a touch screen display:
detecting a single finger gesture on a marker on a digital map on the touch screen display;
in response to determining that the single finger gesture moves a finger contact area more than a first predetermined distance in a first predetermined time when a finger in the single finger gesture initially touches the touch screen display, moving the digital map on the touch screen display in accordance with the movement of the single finger gesture, rather than displaying a user-selectable region for obtaining information associated with the marker on the touch screen display or moving the marker on the digital map in accordance with the single finger gesture;
in response to determining that the single finger gesture is a single tap gesture that moves the finger contact area less than a second predetermined distance and lasts less than a second predetermined time, displaying the user-selectable region, which when selected initiates display of an interface for obtaining information associated with the marker on the touch screen display, rather than moving the digital map on the touch screen display or moving the marker on the digital map in accordance with the single finger gesture; and
in response to determining that the single finger gesture includes a substantially stationary contact, the substantially stationary contact moving the finger contact area less than a third predetermined distance and lasting more than the second predetermined time, followed by translation of the finger contact area on the touch screen display after the second predetermined time ends, moving the marker on the digital map in accordance with movement of the single finger gesture, rather than moving the digital map on the touch screen display or displaying the user-selectable region for obtaining information associated with the marker on the touch screen display.


That's claiming a very specific combination of gestures for a map display app. It's not claiming displaying a map on a mobile device.
 
2012-10-31 04:28:21 PM  
Most aproppiate logo ever?
www.surfcast.com 
/hot
 
2012-10-31 04:33:07 PM  

cptjeff: Theaetetus: 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?"

Companies like MIT, Georgia Tech, Johns Hopkins, or Cornell University, who do millions upon millions of dollars of research funded by patent license fees?

Patent holding shell companies are a hell of a lot different than research universities, and it would be very easy to make the distinction legally if you wanted to try to fix the patent system. For example, you could define your non-practicing entity as a, "for profit entity that..." and you're done.


Universities make a lot of profit, and it's also easy to structure a shell company as a non-profit that pays outrageous salaries to its employees. If you think you're done with a definition like that, then you won't have actually fixed anything.
Clearly, from your proposed definition, the issue isn't the fact that they don't make anything, since you don't mind research universities. And since those universities are plenty rich, it can't be that they make money. Rather, the issue is the outrageous damage awards and court costs that effectively amount to extortion, no?

You could fix this one way by limiting damages from the infringer's profits to the patent owner's lost income, represented either by lost sales or by lost license fees, with the latter determined either by previous licenses or by a third party independent expert. Trolls who don't actually sell licenses, but just sue would have no evidence for valuable licenses, and an expert could say "yeah, that's worth a penny per thousand units." Universities who license all the time could point to those licenses.

You could also fix this the other way by apportioning costs based on who loses the suit, probably offset by any procedural delay or cost increases generated by the other party. But that's a little tougher, and could actually be worse for someone who innocently infringes a patent and would currently not have to pay those. That's why I'd prefer the previous solution.
 
2012-10-31 04:33:22 PM  
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.

That seems like it is describing widgets on Android.
 
2012-10-31 04:33:41 PM  

BronyMedic: Patent Trolls versus Microsoft.

Wow. I really gotta cheer Microsoft on this one. The patent trolls really don't know what they're getting into with these guys.

[leavinglaw.files.wordpress.com image 346x346]

Microsoft has a direct in with Satan, I hear. It's how they got Windows ME to release.


Except this isn't a patent troll. This action is being brought by the company that developed very similar dynamic icon technology. Did MS actually rip them off? I guess we'll find out. MS does have a long history of this sort of thing. Almost everything in Windows is "borrowed" from someone else. They stopped innovating and started imitating long ago. This is why they are almost hopelessly behind Apple and Google in mobile and cross-device technology.

If Windows 8 is a flop, Microsoft will become irrelevant. It sounds like they have some really good ideas with the product, but there is a concern that long-time users of Windows may have significant problems with the new UI.
 
2012-10-31 04:34:28 PM  

Theaetetus: Nah, you just keep everything as trade secrets, invented for your wealthy aristocratic patron. And progress will continue - why, within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings in Europe will own them.


Exactly. This is why there is absolutely no software or product development or advancements taking place in places with stricter patent systems like Canada.
 
2012-10-31 04:38:13 PM  

Antimatter: BeesNuts: 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.

You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.


That's the case in tech right now, though, just with massive externalities (legal fees) for everyone involved- they cancel out. All this stuff is essentially the same, and they're freely copying off of each other. It's still insanely profitable.

Now, when you're talking about complicated bits of chemical engineering, you might have a case, but in the tech world? Patents impose a cost with no benefit. Especially in regards to software, which should never have been patentable in the first place. The system we have for patenting software would be akin to a copyright system where you could protect not just the text of your book, but anything like it. David McCullough, instead of having protection for John Adams, would have protection for "History books regarding executive branch politics during the Federal Period". Another author might have protection for, "History books regarding operations of the Presidency immediately after ratification". Despite the immense overlap, nobody would think this a strange system, and David McCullough and Ron Chernow (His recent Washington bio) would be suing and counter-suing for 10 million dollars or so.
 
2012-10-31 04:39:44 PM  

Antimatter: You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.


Complete and utter rubbish. Presented with a choice between similar products at similar prices, people gravitate towards the brand-names that were there first and are best established.

The system as-is is totally broken. It no longer protects the little guy (the supposed reason for making it in the first place), it's a nuisance to the big guy too (a significant portion of their profits is frittered away on defending themselves against patent trolls, trying to buy up a warchest of patents of their own, and defending themselves against nonsense lawsuits from their closest rivals after every product launch), and that's passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for the products (which is part of *why* third-party, no-name knockoffs are so much cheaper.) The big guy will put up with it though, because it's a nuisance they get to wield against others too--but they'd happily do without it if it were gone and couldn't be used against them either.

It's high time it was fixed, but it won't be, because too many people--and especially, too many lawyers--are getting fat off the status quo.
 
2012-10-31 04:39:45 PM  

tomcatadam: Theaetetus: Nah, you just keep everything as trade secrets, invented for your wealthy aristocratic patron. And progress will continue - why, within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings in Europe will own them.

Exactly. This is why there is absolutely no software or product development or advancements taking place in places with stricter patent systems like Canada.


... Your sarcasm actually went completely over my head. With a few minor changes like the grace period, applicant filing, and first to file rather than first to invent (which difference is going away in about 5 months), Canada's system and the US' are almost identical. Could you explain what you meant?
 
2012-10-31 04:41:17 PM  

cptjeff: Especially in regards to software, which should never have been patentable in the first place.


Why not? Are there any other industries which should be exempted out from the patent system, regardless of how new and innovative their ideas are?
 
2012-10-31 04:44:39 PM  
fark this, I'm taking my life savings and hiring a team of lawyers to patent geometric shapes for me.
 
2012-10-31 04:45:15 PM  

gweilo8888: Antimatter: You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.

Complete and utter rubbish. Presented with a choice between similar products at similar prices, people gravitate towards the brand-names that were there first and are best established.


Yeah, like Crush the Castle! Oh, wait...
I meant Tiny Tower! Er...
I meant Farm Town! Um...
Mob Wars? Crap.
Restaurant City? Aw, forget this.

The system as-is is totally broken. It no longer protects the little guy (the supposed reason for making it in the first place)

That wasn't the reason for making it at all.
 
2012-10-31 04:48:15 PM  
I'm .patenting hexagon tiles - and don't you farkin' copy me!
 
2012-10-31 04:50:08 PM  
I guess Fractal Edged Rectangles are safe for now.
 
2012-10-31 05:08:39 PM  

SinisterDexter: I'm .patenting hexagon tiles - and don't you farkin' copy me!


Windows Mobile 6.5 had them, sorry try again
 
2012-10-31 05:09:19 PM  
I just noticed that nobody patented electricity. I'm submitting an application now.
 
2012-10-31 05:12:19 PM  

Theaetetus: 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.

The recycle bin doesn't provide a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information (its contents), but rather merely indicates the presence or absence of underlying information, while remaining agnostic to the substance of that information.

But that's just the description. To invalidate a patent, you have to go to the claims, and specifically, you need to find one or more pieces of prior art that, alone or in combination, disclose, teach, or suggest each and every element in the claims.
Sure, the recycle bin is prior art - it's in the same art, and it's prior. But does it teach every element in the claims? If not, that's not sufficient to dismiss the case.


You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
4.bp.blogspot.com

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

/Imagining the millions of programmers that did and are still doing the same thing.
 
2012-10-31 05:17:14 PM  
Oh FFS. It is like they never dreamed anyone had hit "cascade" which is in win OSes prior to 2000 so they can go eat a cack. I would say that Packard Bell has more grounds for lawsuit than these dbags. Whatever. Best of luck to them and their lawyer against MS's team of pros lol. If they win with MS, then they can take on the big boys at Apple and Linux ;)
 
2012-10-31 05:20:41 PM  

Theaetetus: stonicus: How is their definition of a "tile" any different than just a regular app window?

From the patent:
A tile is different from a window because a tile will typically be smaller in size, allowing the user to view multiple tiles simultaneously if desired.

A tile provides an at-a-glance view of the current status of the program or file associated with it but does not necessarily have the large number of active areas associated with windows such as title bar, menu bar and scroll bars. Therefore tiles lead to a reduction in clutter on the display screen because many tiles may be displayed simultaneously without overlapping with one another in the way that windows must necessarily do.


Windows don't necessarily have to overlap; see tile "horizontally/vertically" which go back to... I don't know the date, but certainly before 2000 [and even goes as far as to use the term "tile"] Windows can be arbitrarily resized so "typically smaller in size" has no meaning. The only differentiation actually being drawn here is that they're undecorated... and title/menu/scroll bars are all optional elements of windows so even that doesn't have much meaning. What they describe is a specific configuration of a window and is no more reasonable than someone trying to patent all 640x480 windows.
 
2012-10-31 05:24:23 PM  

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!!


The Gene Roddenberry estate should sue them all, including apple - tell me WIN8 doesn't look like the displays on Enterprise-D!
 
2012-10-31 05:24:58 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]


I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

In what way do they fit the bill?
 
2012-10-31 05:28:17 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: stonicus: How is their definition of a "tile" any different than just a regular app window?

From the patent:
A tile is different from a window because a tile will typically be smaller in size, allowing the user to view multiple tiles simultaneously if desired.

A tile provides an at-a-glance view of the current status of the program or file associated with it but does not necessarily have the large number of active areas associated with windows such as title bar, menu bar and scroll bars. Therefore tiles lead to a reduction in clutter on the display screen because many tiles may be displayed simultaneously without overlapping with one another in the way that windows must necessarily do.

Windows don't necessarily have to overlap; see tile "horizontally/vertically" which go back to... I don't know the date, but certainly before 2000 [and even goes as far as to use the term "tile"]


Yep, you're thinking of tiling window managers. Probably late 1970s.

Windows can be arbitrarily resized so "typically smaller in size" has no meaning. The only differentiation actually being drawn here is that they're undecorated... and title/menu/scroll bars are all optional elements of windows so even that doesn't have much meaning.

Well, not really... They're control surfaces for the window itself. Remove them, and is it still a window? Or is it something different?

What they describe is a specific configuration of a window and is no more reasonable than someone trying to patent all 640x480 windows.

Again, not really. The patent actually has more to do with updating the tiles and how they get their source data. Plus, tiles are relatively narrowly defined such that a window isn't a tile and a tile isn't a window. Doing the same thing with windows or icons would appear to not infringe the patent, since they specifically said that tiles are different than either.
 
2012-10-31 05:32:30 PM  

Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]

I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

In what way do they fit the bill?


both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information
 
2012-10-31 05:37:02 PM  

Theaetetus: Well, not really... They're control surfaces for the window itself. Remove them, and is it still a window? Or is it something different?


No, it's still a window. What you're describing are controls and they are optional. Especially the scroll bar. What you're suggesting is that if I go into Visual Studio, make a new form, set the border style to none, resizable to false, and scroll bars to none; the only thing standing between me and this patent doing a bounds check on the sides? That's called "docking" and while there's no checkbox for it, it's pretty damn common.

Here, have some 1997:
screenshots.en.sftcdn.net

This. Patent. Is. Garbage.

/Alright, I guess it's technically a "form" and not a "window"
//point stands
 
2012-10-31 05:38:09 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]

I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

In what way do they fit the bill?

both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information


Would depend on the button, I suppose... For example, one that only has the same sort of true or false behavior of the recycling bin mentioned above wouldn't qualify, since it's not providing a view of the underlying information. Additionally, while they'd be a start for a rejection of the patent, a single button wouldn't be enough, since some of the claim is around the grid and refresh of different tiles.
 
2012-10-31 05:39:32 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: Well, not really... They're control surfaces for the window itself. Remove them, and is it still a window? Or is it something different?

No, it's still a window. What you're describing are controls and they are optional.

... Here, have some 1997:
[screenshots.en.sftcdn.net image 550x377]


Maybe that screenshot renders differently on your screen. Is your browser cutting off the top 10 pixels that the rest of us can see?
 
2012-10-31 05:39:58 PM  

Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]

I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

In what way do they fit the bill?

both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information

Would depend on the button, I suppose... For example, one that only has the same sort of true or false behavior of the recycling bin mentioned above wouldn't qualify, since it's not providing a view of the underlying information. Additionally, while they'd be a start for a rejection of the patent, a single button wouldn't be enough, since some of the claim is around the grid and refresh of different tiles.


The tray area itself the 'grid' and the items with their dynamic appearance the 'tiles.'
 
2012-10-31 05:45:40 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]

I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

In what way do they fit the bill?

both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information

Would depend on the button, I suppose... For example, one that only has the same sort of true or false behavior of the recycling bin mentioned above wouldn't qualify, since it's not providing a view of the underlying information. Additionally, while they'd be a start for a rejection of the patent, a single button wouldn't be enough, since some of the claim is around the grid and refresh of different tiles.

The tray area itself the 'grid' and the items with their dynamic appearance the 'tiles.'


The system tray area? I suppose... It's not a bad argument that the system process icon could be a "tile" that is updated to show underlying information, namely the CPU utilization. That one could go either way, since it would be an okay broadest possible reading of the claims, but it wouldn't be consistent with the specification.
It also wouldn't begin to touch most of the dependent claims, which would actually rule out the system tray as anticipatory art.
 
2012-10-31 05:46:54 PM  

Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: Well, not really... They're control surfaces for the window itself. Remove them, and is it still a window? Or is it something different?

No, it's still a window. What you're describing are controls and they are optional.

... Here, have some 1997:
[screenshots.en.sftcdn.net image 550x377]

Maybe that screenshot renders differently on your screen. Is your browser cutting off the top 10 pixels that the rest of us can see?


If you're suggesting that turning the titlebar off is patentable, then one would be able to patent a specific window size as well, correct? They both consist of altering configuration values in common UI toolkits. Both change the appearance of the window. Why would they be different?
 
2012-10-31 05:49:06 PM  
Forget looking for a real job, I'm just going to file a bunch of patents, and become a patent troll and strike it rich.
 
2012-10-31 05:52:36 PM  

Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]

I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

In what way do they fit the bill?

both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information

Would depend on the button, I suppose... For example, one that only has the same sort of true or false behavior of the recycling bin mentioned above wouldn't qualify, since it's not providing a view of the underlying information. Additionally, while they'd be a start for a rejection of the patent, a single button wouldn't be enough, since some of the claim is around the grid and refresh of different tiles.


Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]

I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

In what way do they fit the bill?

both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information

Would depend on the button, I suppose... For example, one that only has the same sort of true or false behavior of the recycling bin mentioned above wouldn't qualify, since it's not providing a view of the underlying information. Additionally, while they'd be a start for a rejection of the patent, a single button wouldn't be enough, since some of the claim is around the grid and refresh of different tiles.


I feel like I should be paid for answering that question.
 
2012-10-31 05:56:34 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: Well, not really... They're control surfaces for the window itself. Remove them, and is it still a window? Or is it something different?

No, it's still a window. What you're describing are controls and they are optional.

... Here, have some 1997:
[screenshots.en.sftcdn.net image 550x377]

Maybe that screenshot renders differently on your screen. Is your browser cutting off the top 10 pixels that the rest of us can see?

If you're suggesting that turning the titlebar off is patentable


Nope. I was suggesting that "a window with a title bar" is not an example of "a tile with no title bar," and so a screenshot of Winamp's windows doesn't help to show that tiles were known in 1997.

then one would be able to patent a specific window size as well, correct?

Assuming for the sake of argument that I was suggesting that, then still no. Windows are known, yes? Widths and heights are known too? Then a combination of a known window with a known height and a known width would not be patentable.
Basically, if A, B, and C are known, then A+B+C is not patentable. What you've done is show that D was known, and then are claiming, without evidence, that A is just a trivial case of D. You haven't yet provided any evidence, so your conclusion is unsupported.

Specifically:
They both consist of altering configuration values in common UI toolkits.

... except that you haven't actually shown any such values or configuration that would remove the control surfaces, including the title bar. So you haven't shown that sentence to be true.
 
2012-10-31 06:00:58 PM  
Anyways, I've got to go fire up Assassin's Creed, but I'll check back later. :)
 
2012-10-31 06:02:33 PM  

Deadmannumberone: 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.


I love that game.. haven't played in years.
 
2012-10-31 06:14:23 PM  

Antimatter: You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.


Why would they even bother? Somebody else would just copy it from them and sell it themselves. A patent has fark-all to do with an inventions "profitability".
 
2012-10-31 06:18:55 PM  
And thus begins another "Forever War".

This crap has already cost us nice things and is going to get a lot worse unless The Court grows some testes.
Since that is not going to happen, the Congress must act and define a workable set of new rules.
Since that is not going to happen,,,,
 
2012-10-31 06:20:23 PM  
Volvo?

/dnrtfa
 
2012-10-31 06:24:44 PM  

Theaetetus: ... except that you haven't actually shown any such values or configuration that would remove the control surfaces, including the title bar. So you haven't shown that sentence to be true.


You don't get it. You have to add those. At the lowest level, the basic UI container is a rectangle. The rest is ADDED. So, it's as you say. but a window as you're thinking of it IS already A+B+C, where A is the undecorated rectangular container. If A wasn't already known, the 'window' as you conceive of it could not exist. I don't need to explain to you how to strip the paint of a car to prove that "car before paint is applied" is a non-obvious idea, do I?

In case I do, it's called (at least in VS C#), FormBorderStyle:
www.perceler.com

In X11, I think it's a matter of setting hints.decorations = 0;

/This is what happens when people who know a lot about law
//Pretend they know anything about other subjects
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-31 06:27:48 PM  
In X11, I think it's a matter of setting hints.decorations = 0;

I showed somebody uwm (I think uwm) years after it had gone out of fashion. No title bars or fancy borders. First reaction was, how do you move and resize windows? I still use thin borders and modifer key + button to move or resize.
 
2012-10-31 06:28:03 PM  

ProfessorOhki: I don't need to explain to you how to strip the paint of a car to prove that "car before paint is applied" is a non-obvious idea, do I?


Rather, isn't non-obvious by virtue of being a non-obvious derivative of 'car with paint.' Of course, the underlying is as obvious/non-obvious as it was on its own.
 
2012-10-31 06:43:37 PM  
New idea: If you don't intend to sell it, no patent.
 
2012-10-31 06:55:45 PM  

ProfessorOhki: /This is what happens when people who know a lot about law
//Pretend they know anything about other subjects


Oh snap! Whiteknightetus just got told!
 
2012-10-31 07:01:38 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Man, round corners AND sharp corners are taken?

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


Been done.
 
2012-10-31 07:02:18 PM  
'tile' just a new name for 'icon'
 
2012-10-31 07:02:35 PM  
Sort of off topic, but Windows 8 color scheme and tiles reminds me of the Univision logo.
 
2012-10-31 07:11:30 PM  

Theaetetus: cptjeff: Especially in regards to software, which should never have been patentable in the first place.

Why not? Are there any other industries which should be exempted out from the patent system, regardless of how new and innovative their ideas are?


Fashion and cooking are already exempted. You can't protect a tee shirt or a suit, you can't legally protect a recipe. You can trademark your logo, you can't patent the design. Last I checked, both the clothing and restaurant industries are doing okay and still creating new things.

Why not? Because code is a way of making hardware do things. It's a language. Say you come up with the phrase, "You're dead to me". You can't lock down that turn of phrase for only your use, but that's more or less what software patents do. You're not allowed to use some fairly simple and obvious methods of coding a GUI, for example, because they're patented. When you lock down a particular use of the "disp" command, it's similar to saying that you claim any use of the word "and".

Not to mention the overlap and breadth of the patents granted. It's as if our copyright system allowed you to protect a subject, not just a particular text. You'd have David McCullough, protecting John Adams with a copyright on "History books regarding executive branch governance during the federal period", and Ron Chernow, with his recent book on Washington, holding a copyright on "History books regarding the Presidency in the Period immediately following ratification", with a massive court battle between them, and a massive lawsuit awaiting any other historian who wrote about the period.

You shouldn't be able to protect your method of coding. You should be able to protect the look and feel of a program under trademark law, but just as you can't prevent anyone from borrowing a phrase, you can't stop other people from finding and using similar, efficient ways to make software run.
 
2012-10-31 07:24:08 PM  

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


Law-talking guys writing or not changing existing laws to help other law-talking guys get money.
 
2012-10-31 08:57:38 PM  
How is the slap chop original when i had the same device in my kitchen when i was 12? About 20 years ago. It was made of steel and glass.
 
2012-10-31 10:09:51 PM  
Yes. They own the patents. Perhaps the better question would be: "why hasn't congress fixed the royally fark'd up patent system?"

The only way patent law will change is if the current system costs the big guys more money than lobbying for a change would be. Then it won't necessarily change for the better.

/have a few ideas for inventions
//will never develop them
 
2012-11-01 12:05:39 AM  
Subby is a retard.
 
2012-11-01 12:26:54 AM  

cptjeff:
Fashion and cooking are already exempted. You can't protect a tee shirt or a suit, you can't legally protect a recipe.


Neither of those are true. You're confusing "it's difficult to claim a recipe or a garment that is not obvious" with "a category of industry is explicitly exempted from patentability, regardless of how novel and nonobvious it is."
Nothing actually bars you from patenting a recipe that gives unpredictable results, or patenting a garment that includes new and nonobvious parts.

So, why do you want to create such an exception for computer products that doesn't exist elsewhere?
 
2012-11-01 12:37:26 AM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: ... except that you haven't actually shown any such values or configuration that would remove the control surfaces, including the title bar. So you haven't shown that sentence to be true.

You don't get it. You have to add those. At the lowest level, the basic UI container is a rectangle. The rest is ADDED.


Then it should be easy for you to show such a UI element in the prior art... Why can't you?

In case I do, it's called (at least in VS C#), FormBorderStyle:
[www.perceler.com image 651x811]

In X11, I think it's a matter of setting hints.decorations = 0;


In case I need to spell it out for you, 2002 was after 1999. Therefore, anything that came out in the year 2002 (like C#) was not prior art for an application filed in 1999.

/This is what happens when people who know a lot about law
//Pretend they know anything about other subjects


///this is what happens when people who know very little about law or programming try to bluster without verifying their facts

Honestly, I'm more embarrassed for your snark backfire than for you forgetting when C# was released. I mean, that's just got to sting.
 
2012-11-01 12:40:50 AM  
Cptjeff, if it'll help, do a search on google patents for, say, "dress" or "pants" or "cake". You'll find tons of examples. Neither fashion nor food is exempt from patentability, provided it's actually novel and nonobvious.
 
2012-11-01 12:46:50 AM  

Theaetetus: cptjeff:
Fashion and cooking are already exempted. You can't protect a tee shirt or a suit, you can't legally protect a recipe.

Neither of those are true. You're confusing "it's difficult to claim a recipe or a garment that is not obvious" with "a category of industry is explicitly exempted from patentability, regardless of how novel and nonobvious it is."
Nothing actually bars you from patenting a recipe that gives unpredictable results, or patenting a garment that includes new and nonobvious parts.

So, why do you want to create such an exception for computer products that doesn't exist elsewhere?


Fair point, I was mistaken. Now address the rest of my post.

Here it is, for your reference.

cptjeff: Why not? Because code is a way of making hardware do things. It's a language. Say you come up with the phrase, "You're dead to me". You can't lock down that turn of phrase for only your use, but that's more or less what software patents do. You're not allowed to use some fairly simple and obvious methods of coding a GUI, for example, because they're patented. When you lock down a particular use of the "disp" command, it's similar to saying that you claim any use of the word "and".

Not to mention the overlap and breadth of the patents granted. It's as if our copyright system allowed you to protect a subject, not just a particular text. You'd have David McCullough, protecting John Adams with a copyright on "History books regarding executive branch governance during the federal period", and Ron Chernow, with his recent book on Washington, holding a copyright on "History books regarding the Presidency in the Period immediately following ratification", with a massive court battle between them, and a massive lawsuit awaiting any other historian who wrote about the period.

You shouldn't be able to protect your method of coding. You should be able to protect the look and feel of a program under trademark law, but just as you can't prevent anyone from borrowing a phrase, you can't stop other people from finding and using similar, efficient ways to make software run.



Should you be able to absolutely bar anybody else from being able to compare items to a watermelon? Should I be able to file something with a central office saying that the process of verbifying words is mine and mine alone? Would that be in any way useful or productive to society?

Also.
 
2012-11-01 12:57:08 AM  

cptjeff: Fair point, I was mistaken. Now address the rest of my post.

cptjeff: Why not? Because code is a way of making hardware do things. It's a language.


So is every other industrial process, all of which are patent eligible. Why should code be special?

Say you come up with the phrase, "You're dead to me". You can't lock down that turn of phrase for only your use, but that's more or less what software patents do.

Not at all. Unlike an industrial process - or software - the phrase "you're dead to me" doesn't actually perform any tangible function. Is the person dead? Have you somehow modified anything, other than feelings? No. Thus, it's not an industrial process.

You're not allowed to use some fairly simple and obvious methods of coding a GUI, for example, because they're patented.

Finally, we get to your real point: you think software shouldn't be patentable, because you think some software patents are obvious. Those are two different requirements. That's like saying "machines shouldn't be patentable, because worm gears are obvious." It belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that there are THREE legal requirements involved, not one. An invention must be novel, nonobvious, AND patent eligible. You're focused on one of those (arguably two) and think that means you can ignore the third. You can't. The law doesn't work that way.

Not to mention the overlap and breadth of the patents granted.

Again, you're arguing about the wrong thing. You're saying that because some patents are broad, another patent that may be the most narrow, nonobvious, innovative thing in the history if the world should not be patentable... Because it happens to be in the same industry.

Also.

Since she's wrong about the fashion industry not being protected by patents, her argument that patents aren't necessary is a bit hollow.
 
2012-11-01 01:02:32 AM  
Basically, competition is good. Protections that allow that enable competition are good. Protections that go to an extreme that restricts competition are very, very bad. Right now, our IP system is very much the latter. Copyrights and patents are a huge burden on implementing new, creative designs. If the producers of Dr. Who wanted to set an episode inside an old western that was long out of distribution, they would have to track down and pay ever single person who participated in each shot they wanted to use. Under our current law, they would have to negotiate with and obtain permission from every single actor, stuntman and extra to use their image. Fair use you say? Maybe in theory legally, but no studio is going to go up against the massive army of lawyers the MPAA would throw against them even for a perfectly legitimate use. The costs are sky high.

Have a new handheld device? Start a small company, build a few, bring it to market, right? Nah. Too many shiatty patents in there. If a small company tried to bring some better piece of tech to market, they would be crushed under legal fees before they ever started. They might be able to sell their design to a company with the lawyers for a pittance, but the legal costs in the system make it impossible for a small company to try and compete and bring a product to market. So the only way a small company can get involved is to sue and leech off the big guys, which ain't exactly helping anyone.

I'm not against IP generally. I am for reigning in its excesses- dramatically. Right now, it's serving to protect existing industry and actively discouraging innovation by making barriers to entry insanely high. That needs to change.
 
2012-11-01 01:13:22 AM  

Theaetetus: because you think some software patents are obvious.


I think all software patents should be considered obvious. If you use language to express a new and original thought, you don't get to protect the concept, just the content of the work in which you expressed it.


Theaetetus: Since she's wrong about the fashion industry not being protected by patents, her argument that patents aren't necessary is a bit hollow.


That shows an incredibly shallow understanding of what she was arguing. You have a tendency to find one technicality that the rest of an argument is not at all dependent on, yell and scream about how wrong a person is on that technicality, and completely ignore the substance of an argument.

Just an observation.
 
2012-11-01 07:58:20 AM  
The first thing we do is kill all the patent attorneys.
 
2012-11-01 08:26:26 AM  

Farkborn: Deadmannumberone: 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.

I love that game.. haven't played in years.


They're making a new videogame out of it. Most of the original creative staff seems to be onboard.

/First thing I thought of when I saw the Blackwater/Xe/Academia thing brought up
//Street Samurai
///Got the skillset.
 
2012-11-01 09:12:50 AM  

cptjeff: Theaetetus: because you think some software patents are obvious.

I think all software patents should be considered obvious. If you use language to express a new and original thought, you don't get to protect the concept, just the content of the work in which you expressed it.


You have no idea what the word "obvious" means. You think it means "invalid". It doesn't. Obviousness is a legal conclusion that an invention does not advance the state of the art. You want even new and original software that does advance the state of the art to be exempt from patentability. In other words, you want NON-obvious software not to be patentable.


Theaetetus: Since she's wrong about the fashion industry not being protected by patents, her argument that patents aren't necessary is a bit hollow.

That shows an incredibly shallow understanding of what she was arguing. You have a tendency to find one technicality that the rest of an argument is not at all dependent on, yell and scream about how wrong a person is on that technicality, and completely ignore the substance of an argument.

Just an observation.


As noted above, you have no idea how to express the thoughts you're trying to communicate, and don't even know the distinctions between the words you're using, and then you're complaining that people ignore the substance of your argument? Dude, I've been very politely trying to help you actually articulate the substance of your argument. If you're going to insult everyone who takes the time to explain why the words you're using are incorrect and which words you should be using to get your point across, you're never going to be able to successfully communicate with anyone.

Also, now address the rest of my post. I did yours when you asked, so either admit you're a hypocrite and a troll, or respond:

Theaetetus:
Finally, we get to your real point: you think software shouldn't be patentable, because you think some software patents are obvious. Those are two different requirements. That's like saying "machines shouldn't be patentable, because worm gears are obvious." It belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that there are THREE legal requirements involved, not one. An invention must be novel, nonobvious, AND patent eligible. You're focused on one of those (arguably two) and think that means you can ignore the third. You can't. The law doesn't work that way.

"Not to mention the overlap and breadth of the patents granted."

Again, you're arguing about the wrong thing. You're saying that because some patents are broad, another patent that may be the most narrow, nonobvious, innovative thing in the history if the world should not be patentable... Because it happens to be in the same industry.

 
2012-11-01 11:09:18 AM  
I am late to the party, but here is a screenshot from VB 6 (released mid 1998), showing the ability of changing border styles with ease. Border Style 0 shows exactly what the other gentleman was talking about. It is an entirely featureless windows, no controls, scroll bars, buttons of any kind.

img189.imageshack.us

And might I just add, Theaetetus, you are a personification of the traits people don't like about lawyers. Thanks.
 
2012-11-01 11:39:31 AM  

TheHumanCannonball: I am late to the party, but here is a screenshot from VB 6 (released mid 1998), showing the ability of changing border styles with ease. Border Style 0 shows exactly what the other gentleman was talking about. It is an entirely featureless windows, no controls, scroll bars, buttons of any kind.


And it's just lovely. Now, that's a good first step, but now you have to find the rest of the elements in the claims. And in particular, several of the claims will rule out using VB6 Windows.

And might I just add, Theaetetus, you are a personification of the traits people don't like about lawyers. Thanks.

I know... Knowledgeable, tenacious, argumentative while being polite and not resorting to petty name calling or personal attacks. The type of traits that judges and juries love, but opposing parties hate. Glad I can be such a good example.
 
2012-11-01 12:26:02 PM  
I don't care about the rest of the elements. It is just as easily done with VC++ 6 as well, or any other programming language by the arrival of the GUI oriented desktop. The point was in reply to your snark about C#, which was released in 2002.

So you can't say it's not valid. You're going to reply with some "well technically..." or "but the case/claim says..." it doesn't matter. It existed before, and was done before. So the whole thing is bullshiat.
 
2012-11-01 12:34:07 PM  
Calling you pedantic is not petty. It's accurate and quite useful in this conversation to describe the method in which you can't see the forest for the trees. Being technically minded is to be pedantic.

As for personal attacks, you're assuming so much. Perhaps I met "And might I just add, Theaetetus, you are a personification of the traits people don't like about lawyers. Thanks." as a compliment. So I would appreciate it if you didn't project your own thoughts onto my statements or implying upon my intentions.

Thanks.
 
2012-11-01 12:38:03 PM  

TheHumanCannonball: As for personal attacks, you're assuming so much. Perhaps I met "And might I just add, Theaetetus, you are a personification of the traits people don't like about lawyers. Thanks." as a compliment. So I would appreciate it if you didn't project your own thoughts onto my statements or implying upon my intentions.
.


Well crap, I can't keep a straight face after I typed that. I guess I'll never be a lawyer. But the rest is still true.
 
2012-11-01 01:18:51 PM  

Theaetetus: ///this is what happens when people who know very little about law or programming try to bluster without verifying their facts

Honestly, I'm more embarrassed for your snark backfire than for you forgetting when C# was released. I mean, that's just got to sting.


Oh yes, how will I ever recovery from that folly? Oh wait, X11 dates back to 1984~1987. I, by complete accident, seemed to have provided two examples and you latched on to the incorrect one and ran with it rather than looking at the more correct one and going "oh." Of course, there's no way that was done gauge your intent in having a real conversation vs. just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Theaetetus: And might I just add, Theaetetus, you are a personification of the traits people don't like about lawyers. Thanks.

I know... Knowledgeable, tenacious, argumentative while being polite and not resorting to petty name calling or personal attacks. The type of traits that judges and juries love, but opposing parties hate. Glad I can be such a good example.


I think they were going more for, "inability to back down when clearly wrong; more interested in twisting the word of the law than dealing with the spirit; and an overall pox on innovation," but that's just my reading.

TheHumanCannonball: Calling you pedantic is not petty. It's accurate and quite useful in this conversation to describe the method in which you can't see the forest for the trees. Being technically minded is to be pedantic.


But you did call him a trial lawyer. That's a pretty harsh personal attack; I can't think of anything more offensive.
 
2012-11-01 01:36:23 PM  
I know both Northup Gromman and L3 can claim prior art for having tiles. NG has them in their digital instruments (glass cockpit) and L3 uses it with their FLIR. The tech has been around since the mid to late 90's, so it's not a good patent.

/Is using government contractors a good thing, or a bad thing.
 
2012-11-01 02:59:33 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: ///this is what happens when people who know very little about law or programming try to bluster without verifying their facts

Honestly, I'm more embarrassed for your snark backfire than for you forgetting when C# was released. I mean, that's just got to sting.

Oh yes, how will I ever recovery from that folly? Oh wait, X11 dates back to 1984~1987. I, by complete accident, seemed to have provided two examples and you latched on to the incorrect one and ran with it rather than looking at the more correct one and going "oh." Of course, there's no way that was done gauge your intent in having a real conversation vs. just arguing for the sake of arguing.


Oh, I'm sorry, were you thinking I was supposed to find better citations and make all of your arguments for you? No, I'd rather have a two-way conversation, than to try to carry both sides by myself.

Theaetetus: And might I just add, Theaetetus, you are a personification of the traits people don't like about lawyers. Thanks.

I know... Knowledgeable, tenacious, argumentative while being polite and not resorting to petty name calling or personal attacks. The type of traits that judges and juries love, but opposing parties hate. Glad I can be such a good example.

I think they were going more for, "inability to back down when clearly wrong; more interested in twisting the word of the law than dealing with the spirit; and an overall pox on innovation," but that's just my reading.


Not unusual. Losing parties usually resort to outrageous hyperbole and statements about how the law shouldn't actually apply, but rather we should focus on the "spirit" of something (regardless of the fact that their definition of that "spirit" is the opposite of the law it's allegedly related to).
 
2012-11-01 03:03:48 PM  

Theaetetus: 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?"

Companies like MIT, Georgia Tech, Johns Hopkins, or Cornell University, who do millions upon millions of dollars of research funded by patent license fees?


Alright. Make them publically funded. Y'know. Like most University research is? Public money goes in, public knowledge comes out.

And don't even get me started on paywalled journal articles covering research funded by NSF. All sorts of wrong.
 
2012-11-01 03:05:30 PM  
The funny part is that you guys apparently think I'm arguing that this patent is valid. I'm not - I haven't looked very closely at it, in fact. What I'm trying to educate you about is the process for finding a patent valid or invalid, specifically that you can't just hold up something and scream "prior art", but that you actually have to map that art to each and every element in the claims. If you learned to listen rather than just being angry and defensive, you might actually learn how to make good, persuasive arguments about invalidity rather than just unsupported conclusions. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
 
2012-11-01 03:07:46 PM  

Theaetetus: Antimatter: BeesNuts: 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.

You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.

Nah, you just keep everything as trade secrets, invented for your wealthy aristocratic patron. And progress will continue - why, within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings in Europe will own them.


[Citation needed]

Also, fark me, I didn't know absolutely nothing was made or improved before IP law was thought up in some godforsaken cellar.
 
2012-11-01 03:23:50 PM  

Theaetetus: The funny part is that you guys apparently think I'm arguing that this patent is valid. I'm not - I haven't looked very closely at it, in fact. What I'm trying to educate you about is the process for finding a patent valid or invalid, specifically that you can't just hold up something and scream "prior art", but that you actually have to map that art to each and every element in the claims. If you learned to listen rather than just being angry and defensive, you might actually learn how to make good, persuasive arguments about invalidity rather than just unsupported conclusions. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.


Like this gem?

"Nah, you just keep everything as trade secrets, invented for your wealthy aristocratic patron. And progress will continue - why, within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings in Europe will own them."

Every thread, this bare faced assertion rears its head. This is your motive for the patent system, and everybody in this thread will tell you you're absolutely wrong. Human history says you're wrong. Knowledge spreads. There is nothing about this statement that is even remotely verifiable.

And it's not that any of us are arguing that you don't know the technicalities of patent law. We're saying that this is farking stupid. I don't care if it's within the 'rules'. Or 'legal'. We're arguing that the law itself is farked up. Proceeding to then argue with everybody about the technicalities of the law is missing the point. And you literally cannot argue that point. At all. You make assertions about the law and then retreat to technicalities because that's what you know.
 
2012-11-01 03:55:54 PM  
If you don't know anything about how patent law works, why not shut your farkin' mouth?
 
2012-11-01 04:04:01 PM  

poot_rootbeer: If you don't know anything about how patent law works, why not shut your farkin' mouth?


You could say the same for people that don't understand how creating software works.
 
2012-11-01 04:06:51 PM  

poot_rootbeer: If you don't know anything about how patent law works, why not shut your farkin' mouth?


Only lawyers get to have opinions on laws!
 
2012-11-01 05:40:04 PM  

Theaetetus: Not unusual. Losing parties usually resort to outrageous hyperbole and statements about how the law shouldn't actually apply, but rather we should focus on the "spirit" of something (regardless of the fact that their definition of that "spirit" is the opposite of the law it's allegedly related to).


Ahem: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

If it's being used as a tool to stifle progress, a reasonable individual might go, "hey, you think this might not be what they meant?"
 
2012-11-01 05:50:34 PM  

Antimatter: BeesNuts: 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.

You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.


So, you're saying that to remain profitable, a company would have to innovate constantly such that they were able to keep ahead of their competition, before the competition could implement their invention, without the benefit of being complacent and riding on their previous successes? Maybe they'd have to get their profit from quality manufacturing, support, etc. rather than being the only game in town?

The horror.
 
2012-11-01 06:00:33 PM  

Kinek: Only lawyers get to have opinions on laws!


You don't have to be a lawyer, but you do have to have read and understood the relevant sections of law, and at the very least understand what a patent application is and what it isn't. Otherwise, you're only polluting the discussion with your ignorance.
 
2012-11-01 06:11:07 PM  

poot_rootbeer: Kinek: Only lawyers get to have opinions on laws!

You don't have to be a lawyer, but you do have to have read and understood the relevant sections of law, and at the very least understand what a patent application is and what it isn't. Otherwise, you're only polluting the discussion with your ignorance.


Sounds fair. Now can we also get lawyers and judges to research and understand the industries they're dealing with so that they're not only polluting the law with their ignorance?
 
2012-11-01 06:11:43 PM  

ProfessorOhki: poot_rootbeer: Kinek: Only lawyers get to have opinions on laws!

You don't have to be a lawyer, but you do have to have read and understood the relevant sections of law, and at the very least understand what a patent application is and what it isn't. Otherwise, you're only polluting the discussion with your ignorance.

Sounds fair. Now can we also get lawyers and judges to research and understand the industries they're dealing with so that they're not only polluting the law with their ignorance?


Oh, and congresscritters too.
 
2012-11-01 06:15:09 PM  
I agree that this is a lawsuit being brought only for the profit of an individual who established a patent holding company to extort someone on a technicality. I bet the owner of the patent is crapping himself with glee that MS released Windows 8 with an approximation of what his patent reads.

That being said, Theaetetus is explaining the law as it stands. In law, there is little room for the "spirit". It is deliberately written to discourage "spirit". The law needs to be altered, but that happens with Congress, so good luck!
 
2012-11-01 06:46:44 PM  

ProfessorOhki: ProfessorOhki: poot_rootbeer: Kinek: Only lawyers get to have opinions on laws!

You don't have to be a lawyer, but you do have to have read and understood the relevant sections of law, and at the very least understand what a patent application is and what it isn't. Otherwise, you're only polluting the discussion with your ignorance.

Sounds fair. Now can we also get lawyers and judges to research and understand the industries they're dealing with so that they're not only polluting the law with their ignorance?

Oh, and congresscritters too.


That reminds me. I need to destroy that one judge that said the PCR DNA products are technically manmade and thus patentable because he didn't understand that PCR DNA is exactly the same (give or take some modifications) to wild DNA.
 
2012-11-01 06:49:03 PM  

Generic Republican: I agree that this is a lawsuit being brought only for the profit of an individual who established a patent holding company to extort someone on a technicality. I bet the owner of the patent is crapping himself with glee that MS released Windows 8 with an approximation of what his patent reads.

That being said, Theaetetus is explaining the law as it stands. In law, there is little room for the "spirit". It is deliberately written to discourage "spirit". The law needs to be altered, but that happens with Congress, so good luck!


I don't think anyone sane has ever argued that Thaetus doesn't know the law. That's his/her job. They're probably competent and get paid more than I ever will.

We just hate the law, the justifications that they come up with to defend ridiculous rules, and general defense of the system. (OH NO. TRADE SECRETS. WHARGARBL)

We hate the game, not the rules.
 
2012-11-01 11:23:30 PM  
They are going to have to sue USA Today and many other websites that are jumping on the bandwagon too...
 
2012-11-02 06:09:07 AM  
I thought of "Live Tiles" as a natural evolution and rebirth of *shudder*...active desktop.
 
2012-11-02 08:35:36 AM  

Kinek: Generic Republican: I agree that this is a lawsuit being brought only for the profit of an individual who established a patent holding company to extort someone on a technicality. I bet the owner of the patent is crapping himself with glee that MS released Windows 8 with an approximation of what his patent reads.

That being said, Theaetetus is explaining the law as it stands. In law, there is little room for the "spirit". It is deliberately written to discourage "spirit". The law needs to be altered, but that happens with Congress, so good luck!

I don't think anyone sane has ever argued that Thaetus doesn't know the law. That's his/her job. They're probably competent and get paid more than I ever will.

We just hate the law, the justifications that they come up with to defend ridiculous rules, and general defense of the system. (OH NO. TRADE SECRETS. WHARGARBL)

We hate the game, not the rules.


Yes, but here's the thing... If you honestly try to change the game and call up your congresscritter and say "abolish the patent system! Software shouldn't be patentable because it's all obvious!" they're going to thank you politely, hang up the phone, and put your number on the nutjob list. If, on the other hand, you can speak knowledgeably about the current system and have reasonable arguments and proposals for change, then you'll get listened to. And the first step to that is asking questions, listening to answers, and graciously accepting help when someone says "the word you want is 'invalid', not 'obvious' and here's why" or the like. It's not being a dick.

I don't think the patent system is perfect, and I've actually got several proposals for reform. I've talked about them in these threads, with reasonable people. But of course, for every reasonable person, there are a dozen calling me an anti-Apple shill, a pro-Apple shill, a litigator, saying I don't know the technology involved*, a liar, etc. And it's sad, because even if any one of those dozen do have a good idea for reform, they're never, ever going to be listened to by anyone with the power to change the system. Because they're dicks.

*not many people know this, but unlike regular lawyers, to become a patent attorney, you have to have an engineering or scientific background. I was an engineer for a decade. This is actually a second career for me.
 
2012-11-02 08:49:50 AM  

Theaetetus: Kinek: Generic Republican: I agree that this is a lawsuit being brought only for the profit of an individual who established a patent holding company to extort someone on a technicality. I bet the owner of the patent is crapping himself with glee that MS released Windows 8 with an approximation of what his patent reads.

That being said, Theaetetus is explaining the law as it stands. In law, there is little room for the "spirit". It is deliberately written to discourage "spirit". The law needs to be altered, but that happens with Congress, so good luck!

I don't think anyone sane has ever argued that Thaetus doesn't know the law. That's his/her job. They're probably competent and get paid more than I ever will.

We just hate the law, the justifications that they come up with to defend ridiculous rules, and general defense of the system. (OH NO. TRADE SECRETS. WHARGARBL)

We hate the game, not the rules.

Yes, but here's the thing... If you honestly try to change the game and call up your congresscritter and say "abolish the patent system! Software shouldn't be patentable because it's all obvious!" they're going to thank you politely, hang up the phone, and put your number on the nutjob list. If, on the other hand, you can speak knowledgeably about the current system and have reasonable arguments and proposals for change, then you'll get listened to. And the first step to that is asking questions, listening to answers, and graciously accepting help when someone says "the word you want is 'invalid', not 'obvious' and here's why" or the like. It's not being a dick.

I don't think the patent system is perfect, and I've actually got several proposals for reform. I've talked about them in these threads, with reasonable people. But of course, for every reasonable person, there are a dozen calling me an anti-Apple shill, a pro-Apple shill, a litigator, saying I don't know the technology involved*, a liar, etc. And it's sad, because even if any one of those dozen do have ...


I'm aware of the requirements, it was an option at one point rather heavily pushed by my Undergrad university that also had a decent law school. Lawyers would come into all the chem and engineering classes, dangling the bait. I thought about it, but realized that all the money in the world couldn't fill the harm I felt I would be doing every day.

Some of us do understand the system. I understand that parts ABCD need to be specifically matching the claims. It irritates me when people come into these threads and speak erroneously on obvious things (like the difference between trademark, copyright, patent.) because it weakens the postition.

I don't think you're an imbecile either. I just think your job has so shaped your worldview that you cannot retreat from going with the facts you know. You know HOW the system works. That's not up for debate. We question WHY there is a system at all. What evidence suggests that this system is the best system? And you need to give clear causation. Simply saying that we're still inventing crap is not enough.

And forgive the anti-patent side from not wanting to negotiate. It just seems that every time that there's a patent reform that has teeth, those teeth are slowly yanked out one by one by one. So bold claims are necessary, because anytime there's been compromise, it tends to go farther and farther in favor of not doing anything productive.
 
2012-11-02 10:25:46 AM  

ProfessorOhki: In case I do, it's called (at least in VS C#), FormBorderStyle:


HEEEEEEEY SEXY BORDER!

/For..For...for FORMBORDERSTYLE!
 
2012-11-02 03:25:13 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Antimatter: BeesNuts: 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.

You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.

So, you're saying that to remain profitable, a company would have to innovate constantly such that they were able to keep ahead of their competition, before the competition could implement their invention, without the benefit of being complacent and riding on their previous successes? Maybe they'd have to get their profit from quality manufacturing, support, etc. rather than being the only game in town?

The horror.


One might also hope that the inventor of some new technology would... you know... have to be involved in its production. And it's *really* likely that said inventor understands this technology better than his competition.

/It's a valid concern, but it's the very concern I don't really see as being handily dealt with in existing patent law.
 
2012-11-02 03:30:50 PM  
BTW, super please with the quality of that conversation. Like I said, I usually get the Blinks and Stares treatment when I mention it in polite company. I'd probably be fired if I mentioned it at work, lol.
 
2012-11-02 08:48:07 PM  

MrCheeks: ProfessorOhki: In case I do, it's called (at least in VS C#), FormBorderStyle:

HEEEEEEEY SEXY BORDER!

/For..For...for FORMBORDERSTYLE!


*groan* That was bad and you should feel bad
i.imgur.com

ah, who am I kidding -- I chuckled
 
2012-11-03 11:32:23 AM  

Isildur: MrCheeks: ProfessorOhki: In case I do, it's called (at least in VS C#), FormBorderStyle:

HEEEEEEEY SEXY BORDER!

/For..For...for FORMBORDERSTYLE!

*groan* That was bad and you should feel bad
[i.imgur.com image 155x107]

ah, who am I kidding -- I chuckled


Funny, that's what I saw in my head as soon as I hit Add Comment.
 
Displayed 152 of 152 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report