Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

22737 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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