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.

(Ars Technica)   How Newegg crushed the "shopping cart" patent and saved online retail   (arstechnica.com) divider line 191
    More: Hero, newegg, chief legal officers, Jones Day, software company, plain, Thank You for Calling, hardware stores  
•       •       •

24554 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2013 at 9:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-27 09:58:25 PM  
Always happy to see a patent troll lose.
 
2013-01-27 10:01:56 PM  
Hope this deters other patent trolls.. But I doubt it.
 
2013-01-27 10:03:12 PM  
Patent trolls should be just behind Nazis and zombies as the top things it's okay to want to gleefully slaughter.
 
2013-01-27 10:04:40 PM  
Good, fark these assholes.
 
2013-01-27 10:05:05 PM  
Internet Tough Guy:
This won't stop patent trolls but will deter them. Until we actually start killing them (literally, go to their offices in real life and shoot every mother farker there) this will continue.
 
2013-01-27 10:05:12 PM  
Yeah, I don't know... Having read the decision, I think Soverain had a seriously terrible, piss-poor argument for one of their claim elements, and a decent one for the other, but the panel focused on the awful argument so much that they decided the case that way. Specifically, they glossed over the fact that the Compuserve reference (being a stateful rather than stateless communication) lacked any "shopping cart messages" that included product identifiers: they were unnecessary - Compuserve knew what page you were on, so when you said "order", it knew to add that product to your cart. That's not the same in a stateless world where your server doesn't want to keep track of thousands of customers, and you need a robust way of keeping them all and their specific orders straight.
But the panel skipped over that in just a couple sentences, and instead focused on the fact that Soverain was arguing that Compuserve didn't have a shopping cart model, when it clearly did. I think that shot them in the foot.

But, either way, this is just a panel decision, and with $2.5 million on the line from the jury's damages award, it will almost certainly go to the full circuit en banc.
 
2013-01-27 10:06:47 PM  
If only I'd filed a patent on the technique of patent trolling.
 
2013-01-27 10:07:26 PM  
Patents that should never have been issued in the first place
 
2013-01-27 10:07:47 PM  

JesseL: Patent trolls should be just behind Nazis and zombies as the top things it's okay to want to gleefully slaughter.


Hey, hold on there. Zombies were once people.
 
2013-01-27 10:08:12 PM  

Theeng: patent troll

ThatBillmanGuy: patent trolls

JesseL: Patent trolls

Satanic_Hamster: patent trolls


You guys all know that Soverain is really just the company that bought OpenMarket, but still sells their product, right? It's like if GlobalCorp bought Intel and kept cranking out chips - GlobalCorp wouldn't be a "troll" in any usual sense of the word.
 
2013-01-27 10:08:21 PM  

LincolnLogolas: If only I'd filed a patent on the technique of patent trolling.


someone else would just have patented the same thing but with rounded corners then found a way to sue you for it later.
 
2013-01-27 10:08:46 PM  
Great article. Excellent to hear a summary of a patent troll losing.
 
2013-01-27 10:09:45 PM  
I feel a little bit better about buying all of my computer parts through Newegg now. Not only do they have excellent customer service, but they fight against the patent trolls too.

From TFA, it sounds like Victoria's Secret is going to save about $20 million bucks due to the outcome of this case too. Maybe they should send some of their models over to Newegg as a thank you.
 
2013-01-27 10:10:19 PM  
Theaetetus:
You guys all know that Soverain is really just the company that bought OpenMarket, but still sells their product, right? It's like if GlobalCorp bought Intel and kept cranking out chips - GlobalCorp wouldn't be a "troll" in any usual sense of the word.

Who didn't read the article? That's right Theaetetus didn't read the article.
 
2013-01-27 10:10:44 PM  
I like Newegg, but there are a few cases where Amazon really kicks their ass. I was looking at a laptop that was ~$200 cheaper on Amazon, same model and everything. Amazon shipping costs suck, though.
 
2013-01-27 10:10:46 PM  
I've always liked NewEgg- bought the parts for my last two desktops from them.

I'll have to order another soon- I'll make sure they get the business.
 
2013-01-27 10:11:54 PM  

Theaetetus: Theeng: patent troll
ThatBillmanGuy: patent trolls
JesseL: Patent trolls
Satanic_Hamster: patent trolls

You guys all know that Soverain is really just the company that bought OpenMarket, but still sells their product, right? It's like if GlobalCorp bought Intel and kept cranking out chips - GlobalCorp wouldn't be a "troll" in any usual sense of the word.


According to TFA, they have not made a sale. Ever.
 
2013-01-27 10:13:01 PM  

Theaetetus: Theeng: patent troll
ThatBillmanGuy: patent trolls
JesseL: Patent trolls
Satanic_Hamster: patent trolls

You guys all know that Soverain is really just the company that bought OpenMarket, but still sells their product, right? It's like if GlobalCorp bought Intel and kept cranking out chips - GlobalCorp wouldn't be a "troll" in any usual sense of the word.


Soverain bought the patents from a VC firm that acquired them from OpenMarket. They did not acquire OpenMarket and continue their business model.

If your "GlobalCorp" bought Intel and continued making chips, they wouldn't be a patent troll. If "GlobalCorp" bought Intel's patent portfolio, stopped making chips, and sued anyone that made anything remotely like it, they'd be a patent troll, just like Soverain.
 
2013-01-27 10:13:24 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus:
You guys all know that Soverain is really just the company that bought OpenMarket, but still sells their product, right? It's like if GlobalCorp bought Intel and kept cranking out chips - GlobalCorp wouldn't be a "troll" in any usual sense of the word.

Who didn't read the article? That's right Theaetetus didn't read the article.


I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.
 
2013-01-27 10:15:43 PM  

Theeng: Always happy to see a patent troll lose.


I'd be happy to see someone go all Jack Ruby on one.
 
2013-01-27 10:16:12 PM  

Theaetetus: Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus:
You guys all know that Soverain is really just the company that bought OpenMarket, but still sells their product, right? It's like if GlobalCorp bought Intel and kept cranking out chips - GlobalCorp wouldn't be a "troll" in any usual sense of the word.

Who didn't read the article? That's right Theaetetus didn't read the article.

I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.


Sounds like a certain patent attorney just lost a big case...
 
2013-01-27 10:16:16 PM  
Now if Newegg would just pay for return shipping on all the damned DOA hard drives they send out, I'd give them a medal.
 
2013-01-27 10:17:11 PM  

Hollie Maea: Theaetetus: Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus:
You guys all know that Soverain is really just the company that bought OpenMarket, but still sells their product, right? It's like if GlobalCorp bought Intel and kept cranking out chips - GlobalCorp wouldn't be a "troll" in any usual sense of the word.

Who didn't read the article? That's right Theaetetus didn't read the article.

I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

Sounds like a certain patent attorney just lost a big case...


u18chan.com
I'm not a litigator.
 
2013-01-27 10:17:43 PM  
The Q&A with Newegg's Chief Legal Officer at the end of TFA is priceless. Talking about patent trolls, "Then they pop up and say "Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!" Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that."

Glad to see someone standing up to patent troll abuse.

Been a fan of Newegg for a long time. They aren't always the ceapest any more, but they still get my money regularly.
 
2013-01-27 10:18:37 PM  

Hollie Maea: Sounds like a certain patent attorney just lost a big case...


Also, that's in no way consistent with the first thing I said in this thread.
 
2013-01-27 10:19:25 PM  

Theaetetus: Hollie Maea: Theaetetus: Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus:
You guys all know that Soverain is really just the company that bought OpenMarket, but still sells their product, right? It's like if GlobalCorp bought Intel and kept cranking out chips - GlobalCorp wouldn't be a "troll" in any usual sense of the word.

Who didn't read the article? That's right Theaetetus didn't read the article.

I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

Sounds like a certain patent attorney just lost a big case...

[u18chan.com image 447x335]
I'm not a litigator.


Not for lack of trying, amiright?

/ lighten up, Frances. Just needling you for white knighting these guys.
 
2013-01-27 10:19:30 PM  
Patent trolls should be just behind Nazis and zombies as the top things it's okay to want to gleefully slaughter.
you forgot evangelical Republicans
 
2013-01-27 10:20:34 PM  
This stuff must be terribly inhibitory  to business.. You know, like all those guvmint regulations we always hear biatched about.
 
2013-01-27 10:21:24 PM  
Hopefully the companies who chose to settle rather than go to trial will still be required to uphold the terms of their settlement and pay Sovereign (and continue to pay the 1% royalty on revenue if that was their negotiated settlement). The companies who chose to go to trial, like Avon and Victoria's Secret, should have those judgements voided and any funds they paid returned to them.

Too often companies turn tail and settle rather than grit their teeth and go to trial. Kudos to Newegg for sticking to their guns.
 
2013-01-27 10:24:14 PM  

JesseL: Nazi


What about Nazi Zombies?
lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-01-27 10:24:31 PM  
Thank you Newegg.
 
2013-01-27 10:24:51 PM  
Newegg is, was and will be the bomb.

/ The bomb
 
2013-01-27 10:26:13 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: JesseL: Patent trolls should be just behind Nazis and zombies as the top things it's okay to want to gleefully slaughter.

Hey, hold on there. Zombies were once people.


That just means you don't defile their remains, unlike the Nazis and patent trolls.
 
2013-01-27 10:26:16 PM  

Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.


I skimmed the decision and didn't see where there was any claim that Soverain was actually using these patents. In fact the original patents were issued for software that is hopelessly antiquated.

/kinda looks like you didn't read the article OR the Federal Circuit decision
 
2013-01-27 10:26:22 PM  

jaytkay: Newegg is, was and will be the bomb.

/ The bomb


OF ALL TIME?
 
2013-01-27 10:26:52 PM  

E_Henry_Thripshaws_Disease: Patent trolls should be just behind Nazis and zombies as the top things it's okay to want to gleefully slaughter.
you forgot evangelical Republicans


In which case... what would they do for entertainment on the Fark Politics tab?
 
2013-01-27 10:27:07 PM  

Hollie Maea: / lighten up, Frances. Just needling you for white knighting these guys.


Again, see the first thing I posted. It's possible to disagree with the judges while not fellating one side or the other. Step away from the politics tab every once in a while: not everything is an our-side vs. their-side dichotomy. It's possible for issues to be more complicated.
 
2013-01-27 10:27:11 PM  
Hey! I have bought stuff from Newegg thru eBay and I can attest to the fact that they do indeed sell things!

/csb
 
2013-01-27 10:28:57 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

I skimmed the decision and didn't see where there was any claim that Soverain was actually using these patents. In fact the original patents were issued for software that is hopelessly antiquated.

/kinda looks like you didn't read the article OR the Federal Circuit decision


They came out with a new version in 2007, well after they bought Open Market. I know that's a while in software terms, but it's not the same thing as if they shut down production in 2000 like you're claiming.
 
2013-01-27 10:32:57 PM  
Hah, my first thought after reading the article was "I bet Theaetetus is in the Fark thread, desperately white-knighting these patent-trolling assholes".
Do you have like a bat-signal or something? Do you surf fark 24 hours a day on the off chance a patent troll needs defending?
 
2013-01-27 10:34:28 PM  
Ahh, Newegg. The hardware hub of all the universe.

/Well done, Newegg. Well done.
 
2013-01-27 10:35:22 PM  
I know Farkers like to hate on patent trolls but I'm actually more curious about this infamous East Texas district that gives them the mana to fight these annoying battles.

I realize you can't erase East Texas but how long and what would it take away their power to be so pro-patent troll?

/serious question
 
2013-01-27 10:36:18 PM  

UsikFark: I like Newegg, but there are a few cases where Amazon really kicks their ass. I was looking at a laptop that was ~$200 cheaper on Amazon, same model and everything. Amazon shipping costs suck, though.


I used to always get my PC parts from NewEgg for years. They had great prices compared to the brick and mortar stores, and I think there was only one time I ever had a defective product from them and their shipping was fast. CompUSA couldn't match them. But now Amazon just has the better prices on most things, and since I have Amazon Prime I get most things in two days free shipping.
 
2013-01-27 10:36:24 PM  
Theaetetus:
They came out with a new version in 2007, well after they bought Open Market. I know that's a while in software terms, but it's not the same thing as if they shut down production in 2000 like you're claiming.

So they sued based on a patent they weren't using, then built new software(by necessity using completely new technology) then claimed "oh yeah see we were using it the whole time". Bullshiat. These patents should never have been issued in the first place(obvious, prior art) and the patents were based on a completely different system than what NewEgg(and every other online retailer) uses. It would be like Henry Ford suing every Formula One team because the Model T and F1 cars are both four wheeled vehicles that a person can ride in.
 
2013-01-27 10:36:59 PM  

Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.


Congrats, you read the article and the decision and failed to understand anything in it. That's like Fox News, refusing to let facts stand in the way of spouting misunderstandings and fabrications. Soverain didn't sell anything: not actual products, and not systems either. They didn't have a single customer, aside from those who bought new licenses to avoid being sued. Not that that mattered in regards to the decision.
 
2013-01-27 10:37:03 PM  

UsikFark: I like Newegg, but there are a few cases where Amazon really kicks their ass. I was looking at a laptop that was ~$200 cheaper on Amazon, same model and everything. Amazon shipping costs suck, though.


What you're paying for on Newegg is the support as much as the product. If I have a problem with something I bought from Newegg, 95% of the time I can return it without any issue at all. Try doing that on Amazon.

Now whether or not it's worth that increased cost differs on the product. $200 difference on a laptop might make it worth it, but I say that as someone who is handy with computers.

Famous Thamas: Theaetetus: Theeng: patent troll
ThatBillmanGuy: patent trolls
JesseL: Patent trolls
Satanic_Hamster: patent trolls

You guys all know that Soverain is really just the company that bought OpenMarket, but still sells their product, right? It's like if GlobalCorp bought Intel and kept cranking out chips - GlobalCorp wouldn't be a "troll" in any usual sense of the word.

Soverain bought the patents from a VC firm that acquired them from OpenMarket. They did not acquire OpenMarket and continue their business model.

If your "GlobalCorp" bought Intel and continued making chips, they wouldn't be a patent troll. If "GlobalCorp" bought Intel's patent portfolio, stopped making chips, and sued anyone that made anything remotely like it, they'd be a patent troll, just like Soverain.


Ursines reoccuring.
 
2013-01-27 10:37:08 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Internet Tough Guy:
This won't stop patent trolls but will deter them. Until we actually start killing them (literally, go to their offices in real life and shoot every mother farker there) this will continue.


i.stack.imgur.com
 
2013-01-27 10:39:05 PM  

Gunther: Hah, my first thought after reading the article was "I bet Theaetetus is in the Fark thread, desperately white-knighting these patent-trolling assholes".
Do you have like a bat-signal or something? Do you surf fark 24 hours a day on the off chance a patent troll needs defending?


Considering Theaetetus is the subject matter expert here.....

/not a lawyer
 
2013-01-27 10:39:36 PM  
Copying Drew's "how about jack shiat and go fark your selves"
 
2013-01-27 10:39:40 PM  

Theaetetus: Theeng: patent troll
ThatBillmanGuy: patent trolls
JesseL: Patent trolls
Satanic_Hamster: patent trolls

You guys all know that Soverain is really just the company that bought OpenMarket, but still sells their product, right? It's like if GlobalCorp bought Intel and kept cranking out chips - GlobalCorp wouldn't be a "troll" in any usual sense of the word.


And with that, you have ounce and for all confirmed that you either work for a patent troll directly, were hired to run internet pr for them, or just have absolutely no credibility on the topic.

Thanks, because I wasn't quite sure if you were a shill, or just well-intentioned and stupid.
 
2013-01-27 10:40:00 PM  
 
2013-01-27 10:40:52 PM  
So the crook who owns that patent company will go to jail now for extorting millions. Right?

Oh wait, I forgot what country this is.
 
2013-01-27 10:42:02 PM  
Patent trolls make corporate capitalist pigs seem sympathetic. That's how odious patent trolling it.
 
2013-01-27 10:42:04 PM  
And all that happens is a new corporation will pop up and sue for similar reasons. I'd LOVE to see a judicial precedent that if a court declares a suit to be frivolous, without merit, and filed only for the purpose of judicial-sponsored extortion, that the protections of incorporation can be shattered to the point where an individual can be liable.

Perhaps a pattern of abuse of the legal system and a history of incorporating shell companies could be a sufficient threshold to pass.
 
2013-01-27 10:43:43 PM  
Newegg rocks!
 
2013-01-27 10:47:40 PM  

Theaetetus: Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

I skimmed the decision and didn't see where there was any claim that Soverain was actually using these patents. In fact the original patents were issued for software that is hopelessly antiquated.

/kinda looks like you didn't read the article OR the Federal Circuit decision

They came out with a new version in 2007, well after they bought Open Market. I know that's a while in software terms, but it's not the same thing as if they shut down production in 2000 like you're claiming.


A new version of something many of these companies don't use, nor need to because the software is obvious, and trivial to write a custom implementation for?

I've noticed a pattern to you, it seems like there's a fundamental lack of software development knowledge, just like with every patent attorney and legislator I've ever seen ramblings from.

Using your above example, if Global Corp bought Intel, and people started using AMD chips, and Global Corp made a new Intel Core 22 processor, but no one bought it, and bought the new AMD Phenom 11 processor, and Apple used the A series, and other companies like MSI and ASUS started making their own chips unrelated to the Intel patents... then Global Corp sued companies like MSI, ASUS, and other companies for infringing on their chip patents... that's the parallel here. A chip is not a chip is not a chip. Their existence at this point is obvious, and there's only a handful of architectures available.

It's a frigging shopping cart... I don't care about their methodology or algorithm... it's an obvious concept with numerous ways to implement I can think of a few ways off the top of my head, and I'm willing to bet they all fall under someone's patent. Which is crap.
 
2013-01-27 10:49:44 PM  
Simple solution: Don't let patents (or copyrights or other "intellectual" property) be assignable to a corporation or trade-able as assets. Joe Smith gets the patent in his name, it's his. Not one of 50,000 patents that Google just bought from Motorola who bought from WirelessCorpInc, etc. etc.
 
2013-01-27 10:50:45 PM  

Theaetetus: Hollie Maea: / lighten up, Frances. Just needling you for white knighting these guys.

Again, see the first thing I posted. It's possible to disagree with the judges while not fellating one side or the other. Step away from the politics tab every once in a while: not everything is an our-side vs. their-side dichotomy. It's possible for issues to be more complicated.


That's like, your opinion, man. But I know how the game is played, so I will ask a jury of my peers. Who here reckons that Theaetetus is white knighting these patent trolls?
 
GBB
2013-01-27 10:51:25 PM  
1) Business as usual
2) Patent troll comes along, says your "shopping cart" is their patent, beings extortion
3) Lawyers fight and lose case and appeal
4) Slowly raise prices and pass the loss onto customers
5) Patent is invalidated, extortion refunded
6) Profit (Don't return prices to original levels)
 
2013-01-27 10:52:16 PM  

Theaetetus: Theeng: patent troll
ThatBillmanGuy: patent trolls
JesseL: Patent trolls
Satanic_Hamster: patent trolls

You guys all know that Soverain is really just the company that bought OpenMarket, but still sells their product, right? It's like if GlobalCorp bought Intel and kept cranking out chips - GlobalCorp wouldn't be a "troll" in any usual sense of the word.


Don't make me downgrade you from Green 3.
 
2013-01-27 10:52:54 PM  

Rev.Veggie.Spam: I know Farkers like to hate on patent trolls but I'm actually more curious about this infamous East Texas district that gives them the mana to fight these annoying battles.

I realize you can't erase East Texas but how long and what would it take away their power to be so pro-patent troll?

/serious question


This American Life's show on the East Texas patent suit business is worth a listen, if you've not already heard it:  http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-paten t s-attack

Act One: NPR reporter Laura Sydell and This American Life producer/Planet Money co-host Alex Blumberg tell the story of Intellectual Ventures, which is accused of being the largest of the patent trolls. The investigation takes them to a small town in Texas, where they find a hallway full of empty companies with no employees.
 
2013-01-27 10:54:02 PM  

Gunther: Hah, my first thought after reading the article was "I bet Theaetetus is in the Fark thread, desperately white-knighting these patent-trolling assholes".
Do you have like a bat-signal or something? Do you surf fark 24 hours a day on the off chance a patent troll needs defending?


Maybe he's a patent troll troll?
A very specific type of internet troll indeed...
 
2013-01-27 10:54:14 PM  

Rev.Veggie.Spam: I know Farkers like to hate on patent trolls but I'm actually more curious about this infamous East Texas district that gives them the mana to fight these annoying battles.

I realize you can't erase East Texas but how long and what would it take away their power to be so pro-patent troll?

/serious question


Actually, they already fixed that. Congress recently passed a law that specifically bans 'forum shopping' for patent lawsuits.
 
2013-01-27 10:54:34 PM  

Hollie Maea: Theaetetus: Hollie Maea: / lighten up, Frances. Just needling you for white knighting these guys.

Again, see the first thing I posted. It's possible to disagree with the judges while not fellating one side or the other. Step away from the politics tab every once in a while: not everything is an our-side vs. their-side dichotomy. It's possible for issues to be more complicated.

That's like, your opinion, man. But I know how the game is played, so I will ask a jury of my peers. Who here reckons that Theaetetus is white knighting these patent trolls?


Dude has a G.E.D. in super-law, get off his case.
 
2013-01-27 10:55:37 PM  
Apple is a patent troll.
 
2013-01-27 10:55:53 PM  

Meethos: Hollie Maea: Theaetetus: Hollie Maea: / lighten up, Frances. Just needling you for white knighting these guys.

Again, see the first thing I posted. It's possible to disagree with the judges while not fellating one side or the other. Step away from the politics tab every once in a while: not everything is an our-side vs. their-side dichotomy. It's possible for issues to be more complicated.

That's like, your opinion, man. But I know how the game is played, so I will ask a jury of my peers. Who here reckons that Theaetetus is white knighting these patent trolls?

Dude has a G.E.D. in super-law, get off his case.


Shiat, I thought I had a slam dunk case here.
 
GBB
2013-01-27 10:59:32 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Simple solution: Don't let patents (or copyrights or other "intellectual" property) be assignable to a corporation or trade-able as assets. Joe Smith gets the patent in his name, it's his. Not one of 50,000 patents that Google just bought from Motorola who bought from WirelessCorpInc, etc. etc.


Eh, no. That would potentially, and currently does, kill innovation. Let's say I come up with the next greatest thing. I draw it out and receive a patent for it. I shop around to find a way to produce it, but I don't have the capital (think pre-Kickstater et al). Why couldn't I sell my idea to someone else? Otherwise, my idea stays mine and no one else is allowed to make the thing.

You know those nifty, semi-new smart chips in your credit card? No, not the RFID ones, the gold/brass contact thing. Those have been around for a long time ... in Europe. The patent holder in the US wanted way too much and wouldn't sell. We had to wait for the patent to expire. When they did come out, it was already old tech and fairly useless. Just imagine the tech we would have lost if we WEREN'T allowed to sell the patent.
 
2013-01-27 11:00:58 PM  

Sim Tree: Actually, they already fixed that. Congress recently passed a law that specifically bans 'forum shopping' for patent lawsuits.


Most of these trolls operate out of East Texas. In fact, there are entire empty office buildings right next to the courthouse where hundreds of these "companies" have their name on a door and a little room with a desk behind the door but that's it. They're entirely fictitious entities, invented by the patent trolls (who are always lawyers).
 
2013-01-27 11:02:35 PM  

GBB: Eh, no. That would potentially, and currently does, kill innovation. Let's say I come up with the next greatest thing. I draw it out and receive a patent for it. I shop around to find a way to produce it, but I don't have the capital (think pre-Kickstater et al). Why couldn't I sell my idea to someone else? Otherwise, my idea stays mine and no one else is allowed to make the thing.


If you can't make it, you have no business patenting it.
 
2013-01-27 11:02:54 PM  
The legal system in this country is a mechanism for the transfer of wealth.
 
2013-01-27 11:03:08 PM  
I like Newegg before, but damn! "For Newegg's chief legal officer Lee Cheng, it's a huge validation of the strategy the company decided to pursue back in 2007: not to settle with patent trolls. Ever."

Repeat. Customer. For Life.
 
2013-01-27 11:04:15 PM  

baronbloodbath: Considering Theaetetus is the subject matter expert here.....


Well yeah; he's a patent lawyer who defends patent trolls for his living, It's not his expertise that's the problem.
 
2013-01-27 11:07:12 PM  
i.imgur.com
/sorry
 
2013-01-27 11:13:48 PM  
Wait, what?

Where's the part of the story how Newegg "crushed" them? In a 2 page article, there was a page devoted to describing Soverain's reign of terror as a troll, half a page describing the buffoonery of a redneck East Texas courtroom for the first case, and then half a page interviewing the CLO of Newegg explaining about juries and how they work and a thumbnail sketch of how they're the Robert Conrad of online retailing by daring patent trolls to knock this website off their shoulder?

Is every one else getting a couple extra pages to make up full article here? I know journalism is a dying art, but there's no "there". I thought that even the windowlickers that make up a majority of on-line writers still stuck to the "beginning-middle-end" structure of telling a story, not stopping halfway through the second act to finish everything with a few lines in a quote/interview.

It's a shame, cuz it sounds like it would be a good story if the author could get around to actually finish it.
 
2013-01-27 11:14:52 PM  

Rev.Veggie.Spam: I realize you can't erase East Texas but how long and what would it take away their power to be so pro-patent troll?

/serious question


The America Invents Act (patent reform act in 2012) actually helps a lot with this. The problem is that you used to be able to sue Microsoft in Washington for $5 million, and John Doe in Florida for $50, and claim that Texas is mid-way between them so it's totes convenient. You didn't care about Doe, but you wanted to be in Texas for its rocket docket and pro-plaintiff attitude and didn't want to be in the home court of the defendant you cared about.
No longer... Now, you can only join defendants if they actually worked together as a team. So those Doe and Microsoft cases are separate, and Microsoft can move the case to Washington where all the evidence and witnesses are and where juries are less anti-Microsoft.
 
2013-01-27 11:15:20 PM  

Lusiphur: Theaetetus: Theeng: patent troll
ThatBillmanGuy: patent trolls
JesseL: Patent trolls
Satanic_Hamster: patent trolls

You guys all know that Soverain is really just the company that bought OpenMarket, but still sells their product, right? It's like if GlobalCorp bought Intel and kept cranking out chips - GlobalCorp wouldn't be a "troll" in any usual sense of the word.

And with that, you have ounce and for all confirmed that you either work for a patent troll directly, were hired to run internet pr for them, or just have absolutely no credibility on the topic.

Thanks, because I wasn't quite sure if you were a shill, or just well-intentioned and stupid.


Well informed, stupid shill. Best I can come up with, having observed his input in this type of thread. Sometimes I've thought "well-intentioned" when he's talked about patent reform in the form of increasing the number and skill-sets of patent examiners (one of which he may be, which may color his opinions). Intelligent he may be - on the side of the advancement of technology and commerce, he is not.
 
2013-01-27 11:17:27 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus:
They came out with a new version in 2007, well after they bought Open Market. I know that's a while in software terms, but it's not the same thing as if they shut down production in 2000 like you're claiming.

So they sued based on a patent they weren't using, then built new software(by necessity using completely new technology)


... I don't think you know how technology works.

It would be like Henry Ford suing every Formula One team because the Model T and F1 cars are both four wheeled vehicles that a person can ride in.

Your analogy is "Ford built the new Model T, so therefore it has to use completely new technology from the Model A. Nothing can be similar!!!" That's retarded. Of course their new software can be an improvement on their old software, and doesn't have to "by necessity use completely new technology." You think Word 2011 is a complete ground-up rewrite from Word 2007? Seriously?
 
2013-01-27 11:19:07 PM  

Lusiphur: And with that, you have ounce and for all confirmed


A weighty accusation, to be sure.
 
2013-01-27 11:23:09 PM  

Quantumbunny: I've noticed a pattern to you, it seems like there's a fundamental lack of software development knowledge, just like with every patent attorney and legislator I've ever seen ramblings from... A chip is not a chip is not a chip. Their existence at this point is obvious, and there's only a handful of architectures available.


"You have a fundamental lack of software development knowledge... also, all processor architectures are obvious, from now until eternity, because there's only a handful available."

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-27 11:24:01 PM  

Hollie Maea: That's like, your opinion, man. But I know how the game is played, so I will ask a jury of my peers. Who here reckons that Theaetetus is white knighting these patent trolls?


Yeah, calling their argument "seriously terrible, piss-poor" is white knighting. You sure done got me. ;)
 
2013-01-27 11:26:42 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus:
You guys all know that Soverain is really just the company that bought OpenMarket, but still sells their product, right? It's like if GlobalCorp bought Intel and kept cranking out chips - GlobalCorp wouldn't be a "troll" in any usual sense of the word.

Who didn't read the article? That's right Theaetetus didn't read the article.


Don't forget that he is Apple's number one fan here on Fark and Apple likse to sue other companies left and right. He's probably concerned that Apple will get smacked down in a similar lawsuit.
 
2013-01-27 11:27:21 PM  

Gunther: baronbloodbath: Considering Theaetetus is the subject matter expert here.....

Well yeah; he's a patent lawyer who defends patent trolls for his living, It's not his expertise that's the problem.


As I said above, I'm not a litigator. I work with inventors to protect their new inventions. The trolls don't come along until years later. You can rail about litigators, and I'll be right there with you, but lumping me in with them is like yelling at a cancer researcher because you're pissed about insurance companies.
 
2013-01-27 11:29:04 PM  
Has anyone else mentioned how awesome Newegg is?
 
2013-01-27 11:29:18 PM  

Latinwolf: Don't forget that he is Apple's number one fan here on Fark


Where are you in all the threads where I'm attacking Apple, like the recent one about patent extension? Oh, right... Pretending I don't exist so you can keep spreading FUD.
Get it straight, Spanky - I'm pro-patent, not pro-Apple. If Apple's on the wrong side, then - because I'm not a hypocrite like you - I'm right there calling them out.
 
2013-01-27 11:34:07 PM  

Theaetetus: Quantumbunny: I've noticed a pattern to you, it seems like there's a fundamental lack of software development knowledge, just like with every patent attorney and legislator I've ever seen ramblings from... A chip is not a chip is not a chip. Their existence at this point is obvious, and there's only a handful of architectures available.

"You have a fundamental lack of software development knowledge... also, all processor architectures are obvious, from now until eternity, because there's only a handful available."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x264]


I'm talking about broad level architectures. And if you look at it in RISC vs CISC, Von Neumann vs Harvard... none of these are patented. I'm not talking about specific implementations and manufacturing methods (ARM, x86, x64, Power PC), which are. I'm talking about concepts of how to process, not specific processors.

You come up with a brand new architecture design, awesome. Then show it isn't just an obvious improvement to an existing one. That's going to be tough to convince Computer Engineers and Computer Scientists. I suppose that likely won't be true for DNA and Quantum computing since a lot of basics will need to be handled by entirely different concepts. Sadly (for you and your litigation cohorts), most of that sort of design is theory and done by academia. Then companies devise specific implementations, which they patent.
 
2013-01-27 11:34:21 PM  
Large sectors of the American business model have shifted from actually creating things, making things or performing services to the industry of looking for a place to stick a siphon hose into whatever litigable loophole will let them bleed something dry. Break stuff, sell the pieces parts to debt farmers, pocket the cash. And, in these cases, do nothing but buy some scraps of paper and then bill people to use something you didn't create. It's a bit pathetic, innit? These are the same people who bark about being taxed on their loot after they paid for all of those politicians to vote against it. There has been a class emerging in our culture since the early '80s and it's not an elite class or an upper class or a job creator class, it's a leech class. And we had better start shunning them.
 
2013-01-27 11:36:03 PM  
ryanblock.com

You're going down, Soverain...
 
2013-01-27 11:38:36 PM  

Quantumbunny: Theaetetus: Quantumbunny: I've noticed a pattern to you, it seems like there's a fundamental lack of software development knowledge, just like with every patent attorney and legislator I've ever seen ramblings from... A chip is not a chip is not a chip. Their existence at this point is obvious, and there's only a handful of architectures available.

"You have a fundamental lack of software development knowledge... also, all processor architectures are obvious, from now until eternity, because there's only a handful available."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x264]

I'm talking about broad level architectures.


Good thing no one ever comes up with one of those. Don't mistake your own lack of creativity as representing a fundamental pattern of lack in everyone else. Remember, hubris is a sin for a reason. :)
 
2013-01-27 11:39:10 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Hope this deters other patent trolls.. But I doubt it.


What? Lawyers will never give up a revenue stream.
 
2013-01-27 11:39:52 PM  

Theaetetus: Of course their new software can be an improvement on their old software, and doesn't have to "by necessity use completely new technology."


It was "necessarily" completely new technology (in this case software platform/languages/standards) because the original technology is not used anymore. You would not implement a new version of the software using 1990's languages and standards for 1990's browsers running on 1990's operating systems.
He's not saying it needs to be "new" technology just for the sake of it, but to match the current state of things.
 
2013-01-27 11:40:47 PM  

devlin carnate: Wait, what?

Where's the part of the story how Newegg "crushed" them? In a 2 page article, there was a page devoted to describing Soverain's reign of terror as a troll, half a page describing the buffoonery of a redneck East Texas courtroom for the first case, and then half a page interviewing the CLO of Newegg explaining about juries and how they work and a thumbnail sketch of how they're the Robert Conrad of online retailing by daring patent trolls to knock this website off their shoulder?


You too? When I started reading this article, I was really wanting to get an idea of what this patent actually covered and why Newegg was not to have violated it. Without doing a lot of research on my own I have no idea.

Well, I guess they did link to the patents. I've no experience with software patents, though it read like a really vague schematic of how an e-commerce system might work. I'm not sure what the novelty of it would've been when it was filed...
 
2013-01-27 11:44:32 PM  

ReverendJasen: Theaetetus: Of course their new software can be an improvement on their old software, and doesn't have to "by necessity use completely new technology."

It was "necessarily" completely new technology (in this case software platform/languages/standards) because the original technology is not used anymore. You would not implement a new version of the software using 1990's languages and standards for 1990's browsers running on 1990's operating systems.


Simply implementing a new version of the software using 2010s languages and standards would not be "completely new" technology. Sure, you have to update things, but it's not "completely new" any more than you throw out all your knowledge of the internal combustion engine when go from a 1990s car to a 2010s car.
 
2013-01-27 11:44:48 PM  

little big man: Now if Newegg would just pay for return shipping on all the damned DOA hard drives they send out, I'd give them a medal.


in all the years i've known of Newegg and read comments of them in threads this is the first time someone has complained. sorry you've had trouble but that's still an excellent track record in my book. (no, i don't work there etcetera).
 
2013-01-27 11:45:28 PM  

yukichigai: UsikFark: I like Newegg, but there are a few cases where Amazon really kicks their ass. I was looking at a laptop that was ~$200 cheaper on Amazon, same model and everything. Amazon shipping costs suck, though.

What you're paying for on Newegg is the support as much as the product. If I have a problem with something I bought from Newegg, 95% of the time I can return it without any issue at all. Try doing that on Amazon.

Now whether or not it's worth that increased cost differs on the product. $200 difference on a laptop might make it worth it, but I say that as someone who is handy with computers.

Famous Thamas: Theaetetus: Theeng: patent troll
ThatBillmanGuy: patent trolls
JesseL: Patent trolls
Satanic_Hamster: patent trolls

You guys all know that Soverain is really just the company that bought OpenMarket, but still sells their product, right? It's like if GlobalCorp bought Intel and kept cranking out chips - GlobalCorp wouldn't be a "troll" in any usual sense of the word.

Soverain bought the patents from a VC firm that acquired them from OpenMarket. They did not acquire OpenMarket and continue their business model.

If your "GlobalCorp" bought Intel and continued making chips, they wouldn't be a patent troll. If "GlobalCorp" bought Intel's patent portfolio, stopped making chips, and sued anyone that made anything remotely like it, they'd be a patent troll, just like Soverain.

Ursines reoccuring.


I like newegg and amazon. With amazon prime it is dead easy to return anything, for any reason _ easier than newegg actually.
 
2013-01-27 11:47:22 PM  
Jack shiat and go fark yourself
 
2013-01-27 11:49:54 PM  

FaygoMaster: devlin carnate: Wait, what?

Where's the part of the story how Newegg "crushed" them? In a 2 page article, there was a page devoted to describing Soverain's reign of terror as a troll, half a page describing the buffoonery of a redneck East Texas courtroom for the first case, and then half a page interviewing the CLO of Newegg explaining about juries and how they work and a thumbnail sketch of how they're the Robert Conrad of online retailing by daring patent trolls to knock this website off their shoulder?


You too? When I started reading this article, I was really wanting to get an idea of what this patent actually covered and why Newegg was not to have violated it. Without doing a lot of research on my own I have no idea.

Well, I guess they did link to the patents. I've no experience with software patents, though it read like a really vague schematic of how an e-commerce system might work. I'm not sure what the novelty of it would've been when it was filed...


Basically, Soverain had some patents purchased from Open Market from the late 90s that covered some implementations of shopping cart models. Newegg claimed they didn't infringe, but a jury found differently...
... but more importantly and crucial here, the trial judge said that Newegg had presented no evidence* that the patents were invalid and took that issue away from the jury. Newegg appealed, and the Federal Circuit panel reversed that decision saying that the patents were invalid as obvious in view of an older patent by Compuserve*.
So, did Newegg do what the patent claimed? Maybe, though that's irrelevant. Really, the patent was determined to be invalid, so they could do the exact same method and be scot free.

*the Compuserve patent was presented at trial, so it seems to be an error by the judge not to let the jury decide for itself whether it rendered the Soverain patent invalid or not
 
2013-01-27 11:50:36 PM  
From TFA:

Just saying "do it on the Internet" isn't a novel invention, the appeals court ruled.

ABOUT GODDAMN TIME.

"That thing over there, but on teh intartubez," should never have been "unique" enough to qualify for patent protection. These trolls shouldn't simply lose, they should be put to death. If a skimask-wearing Muslim did an equivalent amount of dollars in damage to the American economy, we'd be carpet bombing cities. These jackholes scam millions and they'll be back next week.
 
2013-01-27 11:51:04 PM  

Theaetetus: not one has responded to my substantive comments about the technology involved, the difference between stateful and stateless models, or the error made in the decision.


Frankly, most people would have no idea what that even means, so how could they respond to it?
And personally, the move from stateless to stateful in *any* modern website user interaction is more than obvious--it's damn near a necessity for any transaction to function. No one deserves to get credit or money for the concept of stateful connections, since it's been around at least since the invention of TCP/IP, if not longer.
 
2013-01-27 11:51:12 PM  
Patent trolls demonstrate how locking up ideas as property does not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, but stifles it. Locking ideas up as property is ultimately just as much a form of censorship as suppressing them.
 
2013-01-27 11:58:18 PM  

ReverendJasen: Theaetetus: not one has responded to my substantive comments about the technology involved, the difference between stateful and stateless models, or the error made in the decision.

Frankly, most people would have no idea what that even means, so how could they respond to it?
And personally, the move from stateless to stateful in *any* modern website user interaction is more than obvious--it's damn near a necessity for any transaction to function. No one deserves to get credit or money for the concept of stateful connections, since it's been around at least since the invention of TCP/IP, if not longer.


This. Between OO programming and modern web language design... users, sessions, purchasable items... how else would you keep track of these things?
 
2013-01-27 11:59:26 PM  

Theaetetus: Simply implementing a new version of the software using 2010s languages and standards would not be "completely new" technology.


Speaking as someone who has done it, it would be a complete rewrite from scratch. The only thing that would transfer is the broad concept. It would not be a case of tweaking some lines of code here and there. Since you guys seem to like the car analogies, we've basically gone from internal combustion engines to electric motors. New tech.
 
2013-01-28 12:00:25 AM  

ReverendJasen: Theaetetus: not one has responded to my substantive comments about the technology involved, the difference between stateful and stateless models, or the error made in the decision.

Frankly, most people would have no idea what that even means, so how could they respond to it?


Oh, agreed, and I totally excuse the people who say "gosh, the technical details of this are over my head, so I'll discuss other issues, like the asinine forum shopping that led to Texas being the preferred patent litigation state."
What I don't excuse are the ones who say "(gosh, the technical details of this are over my head, but I won't actually mention that, and) wharrrgarbl this is obvious and Theaetetus doesn't know software and hurr de durr!"

And personally, the move from stateless to stateful in *any* modern website user interaction is more than obvious--it's damn near a necessity for any transaction to function. No one deserves to get credit or money for the concept of stateful connections, since it's been around at least since the invention of TCP/IP, if not longer.

Erm, stateless, not stateful. But I know what you meant. Bear in mind, however, that this patent didn't claim "stateless transactions", but a specific implementation of them. And that implementation may well be obvious in view of what prior art existed, but simply saying "all transactions are obvious" or "TCP existed, so therefore no one has solved a computing problem since 1974" misses that distinction.
 
2013-01-28 12:01:51 AM  

Quantumbunny: ReverendJasen: Theaetetus: not one has responded to my substantive comments about the technology involved, the difference between stateful and stateless models, or the error made in the decision.

Frankly, most people would have no idea what that even means, so how could they respond to it?
And personally, the move from stateless to stateful in *any* modern website user interaction is more than obvious--it's damn near a necessity for any transaction to function. No one deserves to get credit or money for the concept of stateful connections, since it's been around at least since the invention of TCP/IP, if not longer.

This. Between OO programming and modern web language design... users, sessions, purchasable items... how else would you keep track of these things?


Surely then it would be easy for you to point to some prior art? That's art that's prior to the patent, as opposed to your previous attempt, mind you. If you need some help with deciding whether a big number like 1997 is less than a small number like 1994, let me know.
 
2013-01-28 12:02:11 AM  

Theaetetus: And when was the patent filed? October 1994. I'm sorry, but thanks for playing!


You mean the patents that were just invalided by the court?
 
2013-01-28 12:05:57 AM  

ReverendJasen: Theaetetus: Simply implementing a new version of the software using 2010s languages and standards would not be "completely new" technology.

Speaking as someone who has done it, it would be a complete rewrite from scratch. The only thing that would transfer is the broad concept. It would not be a case of tweaking some lines of code here and there. Since you guys seem to like the car analogies, we've basically gone from internal combustion engines to electric motors. New tech.


Exactly - the "broad concept" is no longer patentable, since it's been done. The "new tech" however, is. Patenting the new tech, however, doesn't make the broad concept unavailable to anyone else, just like this patent didn't claim all methods of using a shopping cart.

Going back to what VoiceofReason was saying about "completely new tech", if you had a patent on a self-propelling machine that was broad enough to cover the broad concept, and you first implemented it with an internal combustion engine, the fact that you later implemented it with an electric motor wouldn't mean your earlier patent didn't apply. It could be broad enough to cover both implementations.
 
2013-01-28 12:06:14 AM  

Famous Thamas: I feel a little bit better about buying all of my computer parts through Newegg now. Not only do they have excellent customer service, but they fight against the patent trolls too.

From TFA, it sounds like Victoria's Secret is going to save about $20 million bucks due to the outcome of this case too. Maybe they should send some of their models over to Newegg as a thank you.


I like the way you think. I feel like ordering something from Newegg just because...
 
2013-01-28 12:06:33 AM  

ReverendJasen: Theaetetus: And when was the patent filed? October 1994. I'm sorry, but thanks for playing!

You mean the patents that were just invalided by the court?


Yes, those. Compuserve, you'll note, predates all of the things QuantumBunny brought up.
 
2013-01-28 12:08:20 AM  

Quantumbunny: You come up with a brand new architecture design, awesome. Then show it isn't just an obvious improvement to an existing one.


I don't have to. I could take the Intel Centrino architechture and rle compress certain cache transactions, and that would be a valid new patent once my IP lawyers got through adding the right language to it.

I'd still owe Intel royalties if I used the Centrino part, but I'd get paid by anyone who used my Intel +1 idea.

/Don't bother filing, I used that example because it is already granted
 
2013-01-28 12:13:46 AM  

Theaetetus: ReverendJasen: Theaetetus: And when was the patent filed? October 1994. I'm sorry, but thanks for playing!

You mean the patents that were just invalided by the court?

Yes, those. Compuserve, you'll note, predates all of the things QuantumBunny brought up.


So you accept that the Open Market patent was invalid by virtue of Compuserve and then by the time Soverain did anything, there was a lot of existing prior art?

Open Market's patents were no more valid than the god damn i4i patents protecting XML data storage for files that Microsoft "violated".

Between software and genomic patenting... I think reasonable people would conclude the patent system needs to be revamped.
 
2013-01-28 12:20:15 AM  

Quantumbunny: From your own Wiki link, the cookie concept was developed at Netscape for months prior before being RELEASED Oct 1994. This means the concept of cookies predates the patent. It may not have been obvious yet, but it's existing prior art.


Nope, secret art is not prior art. If Netscape developed the concept for months and didn't tell anyone, then it doesn't qualify as a prior publication that anticipates or invalidates the patent.

Additionally, the patent didn't claim the concept of cookies. Even if Netscape's use were prior art for the concept of using cookies, which it isn't, that doesn't get you to invalidating the patent. You have to show each element in the patent claim existed in the prior art, not that a simple broad concept existed.

For example, Toyota invented a new type of planetary transmission for their hybrid cars. Saying that "transferring power was known" may be completely true, but that doesn't make their patent invalid, because they weren't simply claiming transferring power, but the specific implementation.

For example:
Compuserve and AOL both had shopping. They were software, as opposed to browser only, and both required a logged in user. It would be logically obvious that on a website you'd have a user whether they were logged in or not. Again via your Wiki, cookies were introduced as a way to implement shopping carts, that means the Netscape development which predates the patent from OpenMarket not only already considered it, but designed to that purpose.

Ah, but shopping carts predated cookies - certainly, cookies are not the only way to implement shopping cars, just one way. For example, both AOL and Compuserve had shopping carts, even though CIS's server side stateful transactions didn't use cookies.

How was this patent ever granted? Like so many millions of others...

Hyperbole aside, since we haven't even reached 10 million patents yet, this patent was granted back in the 1990s, when the USPTO didn't consider computer science to be a real "technical" degree. Instead, you had EE and CE guys reviewing software-oriented patents, and it was out of their experience, resulting in some poor examination. This is a legitimate issue, but unfortunately, with all the wharrgarbl about "patent lawyers are all shills" and "all software is obvious and nothing has been invented since 1960," reasonable arguments about adjusting the burden of proof on an alleged infringer fall by the wayside. I mean, it's like trying to have a discussion about NASA's budget and being overwhelmed by people saying the moon landings were faked. Even if they mean well or have legitimate gripes, they end up discrediting themselves to anyone who could actually address their complaints.
 
2013-01-28 12:31:03 AM  

Quantumbunny: Theaetetus: ReverendJasen: Theaetetus: And when was the patent filed? October 1994. I'm sorry, but thanks for playing!

You mean the patents that were just invalided by the court?

Yes, those. Compuserve, you'll note, predates all of the things QuantumBunny brought up.

So you accept that the Open Market patent was invalid by virtue of Compuserve


No, I said that it predates the patent. In other words, the judges and litigators involved understand the difference between prior art and art that came years later. I didn't think that needed further explanation.

As for whether the patent is invalid over Compuserve, I'd have to look a bit closer at both the patent and the CIS reference - I've only read the decision here, not the references. As I said originally, I disagree with the panel decision with regard to the product identifier message and thought their reasoning was incredibly weak based on what they said, but I agree with them with regard to the shopping cart database. Now, a better reading of Compuserve than was included in the decision may address the failings regarding the product identifier message, or a targeted prior art search may turn up a better reference for that element.
In other words, I'm not saying that the patent is necessarily valid, but based on what I read in the decision, I disagree that it's necessarily invalid.

and then by the time Soverain did anything, there was a lot of existing prior art?

"Prior" to Soverain doing anything, yes. "Prior" to the patent, no - if the patent was in 1994, and some reference was published in 1996, and Soverain bought it in 2000, that doesn't suddenly push the reference back two years in history and pre-date 1994. Time doesn't work that way.

Open Market's patents were no more valid than the god damn i4i patents protecting XML data storage for files that Microsoft "violated".

i4i's patents stood up to multiple reexaminations and were fought by some of the best-paid litigators all the way to the Supreme Court. It's a bit tough to whine that they're invalid since even with half a billion on the line, no one could find any invalidating prior art.

Between software and genomic patenting... I think reasonable people would conclude the patent system needs to be revamped.

As I said above, there are legitimate gripes, but you're confusing the issues and it destroys any credibility you have talking about them. "Grrr, trolls suck! We need to abolish software patents!" That's an actual issue and then an unrelated solution. Anyone who even slightly disagrees with you will never come around to your way of thinking, no matter how valid your complaints are, and there aren't really a huge number of "let's abolish all patent law" people in Congress, y'know.
How about "trolls suck, so let's address the problem of trolls"? Like, start with damages and pegging them to the infringer's profits regardless of the patent owner's income?
 
2013-01-28 12:32:18 AM  
(off to bed, will return in the morning, lest anyone think I'm running away from the conversation. G'night, friends and angry ad hominem spewers alike!)
 
2013-01-28 12:32:54 AM  

KrispyKritter: little big man: Now if Newegg would just pay for return shipping on all the damned DOA hard drives they send out, I'd give them a medal.

in all the years i've known of Newegg and read comments of them in threads this is the first time someone has complained. sorry you've had trouble but that's still an excellent track record in my book. (no, i don't work there etcetera).


Wander through the ratings on bare hard drives and sort by 'lowest rating'; you'll see the poor souls who drew the bad lots - Newegg won't pay the shipping to exchange a DOA item:

Pros: 3 TB, uses less power
Cons: Only worked for about 30 minutes. I tried new power, SATA cables and even in a second computer.
Other Thoughts: Disappointing that I have to pay $12 to ship this defective thing back.


Pros: None
Cons: Drive was dead on arrival.
Packaging was a little messed up, and there was nothing under the drive. All of the packaging material was on the top.
I should't have to pay for return shipping for something that died before I even got it.
 
2013-01-28 12:52:14 AM  

Theaetetus: As I said above, there are legitimate gripes, but you're confusing the issues and it destroys any credibility you have talking about them. "Grrr, trolls suck! We need to abolish software patents!" That's an actual issue and then an unrelated solution. Anyone who even slightly disagrees with you will never come around to your way of thinking, no matter how valid your complaints are, and there aren't really a huge number of "let's abolish all patent law" people in Congress, y'know.
How about "trolls suck, so let's address the problem of trolls"? Like, start with damages and pegging them to the infringer's profits regardless of the patent owner's income?


The real issue is that it's impossible to not infringe on software patents, the way the system is set up.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/04304018046/why-its-mathem at ically-impossible-to-avoid-infringing-software-patents.shtml

Relevant to this discussion:
"While some people assume that patent infringement is all about one company "copying" another, in the vast, vast majority of cases it involves independent invention (often of the obvious next step in a process). The infringement couldn't be prevented, because the companies were just building what they needed to build to serve the market, and it's basically impossible to check to see if you actually infringe on another patent."

Clearly this is the case with shopping carts. I don't care who patented it, it's impossible to run an online retailer without some version of a shopping cart. So the patent shouldn't matter because it's a necessary part of the business. Only if you have some particularly unique version of a shopping cart that someone copies should you be able to claim patent infringement.
 
2013-01-28 12:58:59 AM  

little big man: KrispyKritter: little big man: Now if Newegg would just pay for return shipping on all the damned DOA hard drives they send out, I'd give them a medal.

in all the years i've known of Newegg and read comments of them in threads this is the first time someone has complained. sorry you've had trouble but that's still an excellent track record in my book. (no, i don't work there etcetera).

Wander through the ratings on bare hard drives and sort by 'lowest rating'; you'll see the poor souls who drew the bad lots - Newegg won't pay the shipping to exchange a DOA item:

Pros: 3 TB, uses less power
Cons: Only worked for about 30 minutes. I tried new power, SATA cables and even in a second computer.
Other Thoughts: Disappointing that I have to pay $12 to ship this defective thing back.


Pros: None
Cons: Drive was dead on arrival.
Packaging was a little messed up, and there was nothing under the drive. All of the packaging material was on the top.
I should't have to pay for return shipping for something that died before I even got it.


If you're doing a regular return/exchange via their forms you will. Complain to customer support and they'll usually fix it for you.
 
2013-01-28 01:00:46 AM  

ReverendJasen: Theaetetus: Simply implementing a new version of the software using 2010s languages and standards would not be "completely new" technology.

Speaking as someone who has done it, it would be a complete rewrite from scratch. The only thing that would transfer is the broad concept. It would not be a case of tweaking some lines of code here and there. Since you guys seem to like the car analogies, we've basically gone from internal combustion engines to electric motors. New tech.


Imagine if someone held the patent on method of entry of a motorized transport. OPening the door and sitting door would be expensive and require a ToS agreement.
 
2013-01-28 01:07:34 AM  

little big man: KrispyKritter: little big man: Now if Newegg would just pay for return shipping on all the damned DOA hard drives they send out, I'd give them a medal.

in all the years i've known of Newegg and read comments of them in threads this is the first time someone has complained. sorry you've had trouble but that's still an excellent track record in my book. (no, i don't work there etcetera).

Wander through the ratings on bare hard drives and sort by 'lowest rating'; you'll see the poor souls who drew the bad lots - Newegg won't pay the shipping to exchange a DOA item:

Pros: 3 TB, uses less power
Cons: Only worked for about 30 minutes. I tried new power, SATA cables and even in a second computer.
Other Thoughts: Disappointing that I have to pay $12 to ship this defective thing back.


Pros: None
Cons: Drive was dead on arrival.
Packaging was a little messed up, and there was nothing under the drive. All of the packaging material was on the top.
I should't have to pay for return shipping for something that died before I even got it.


Sue them for fraud and/or theft. That'll fix the problem in a hurry.
 
2013-01-28 01:41:05 AM  

roncofooddehydrator: Clearly this is the case with shopping carts. I don't care who patented it, it's impossible to run an online retailer without some version of a shopping cart. So the patent shouldn't matter because it's a necessary part of the business. Only if you have some particularly unique version of a shopping cart that someone copies should you be able to claim patent infringement.


And for that matter, the big problem is the ability to patent vague ideas that you don't even have to even make/program yourself. I shouldn't be able to, say, patent "choosing an item to buy and then having a matter-energy transporter beam it right to your door step," much less patent the idea of sending a customer a copy of the invoice by electronic mail after making a purchase.
 
2013-01-28 02:38:46 AM  
Fark former U.S. District Jdge T. John Ward Sr., who started this local industry for the Eastern District of Texas. His, son, T. John Ward Jr., runs a patent litigation firm, which daddy joined upon leaving the bench.


The judge said he didn't set out to make the Eastern District of Texas an IP hotspot - it was the "ultimate example of the law of unintended consequences," he said.

Accidental, my ass, you P.O.S.
 
2013-01-28 02:40:27 AM  
*"unintended", my ass. Anyway, you get the idea.
 
2013-01-28 02:49:40 AM  
For Newegg's chief legal officer Lee Cheng, it's a huge validation of the strategy the company decided to pursue back in 2007: not to settle with patent trolls. Ever.

"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshiat," said Cheng in an interview with Ars.


*claps heartily* Now that's legal talk I can understand.
 
2013-01-28 03:21:30 AM  

Gunther: Hah, my first thought after reading the article was "I bet Theaetetus is in the Fark thread, desperately white-knighting these patent-trolling assholes".
Do you have like a bat-signal or something? Do you surf fark 24 hours a day on the off chance a patent troll needs defending?


It's a living. Someone has to do it I guess.
 
2013-01-28 03:24:49 AM  

JesseL: Plant Rights Activist: JesseL: Patent trolls should be just behind Nazis and zombies as the top things it's okay to want to gleefully slaughter.

Hey, hold on there. Zombies were once people.

That just means you don't defile their remains, unlike the Nazis and patent trolls.


Which is why patent trolls should come before zombies.
 
2013-01-28 03:52:42 AM  

Plant Rights Activist: JesseL: Patent trolls should be just behind Nazis and zombies as the top things it's okay to want to gleefully slaughter.

Hey, hold on there. Zombies were once people.


But it's perfectly fine to gleefully slaughter them, because after all, they're already dead.
 
2013-01-28 05:55:27 AM  
Theaetetus, defending patent trolls? Quelle surprise.
 
2013-01-28 05:57:18 AM  
You know how I know none of you (including apparently the district judge) read the actual patent claims and understand networking?

The patent claims have absolutely nothing to do with stateful vs stateless technology.

The patents claim the following (with some other trivial fluff):
Send a message from a buyer computer to the seller computer, the message comprising a product identifier.
Encrypt "the message" creating an "access message", and forward it to a payment computer.
It's eventually decrypted and authenticated and then a product software is sent to the buyer computer.

In fact, the patent's spec's disclosed example of "the message" is encoding the product identifier (and some other relevant information) into the HTTP request, specifically in the URL. There is no cookie or state object, it just encodes it into the URL to-be-requested.

HTTP did exist at this time and supported encoding shiat into the URL:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/AsImplemented.html
 
2013-01-28 07:55:35 AM  
Yes, try the cases in East Texas. By all means.
 
2013-01-28 08:24:20 AM  
Score one for justice. Jesus, she needed a win.
 
2013-01-28 08:34:47 AM  
Hey patent trolls, go buy up some gun and ammunition patents and chase those folks for a while.
 
2013-01-28 08:37:40 AM  
img59.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-28 08:43:19 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: GBB: Eh, no. That would potentially, and currently does, kill innovation. Let's say I come up with the next greatest thing. I draw it out and receive a patent for it. I shop around to find a way to produce it, but I don't have the capital (think pre-Kickstater et al). Why couldn't I sell my idea to someone else? Otherwise, my idea stays mine and no one else is allowed to make the thing.

If you can't make it, you have no business patenting it.


So only large corporations should be able to profit from an idea? Bullshiat.
 
2013-01-28 08:58:46 AM  

EbolaNYC: stiletto_the_wise: GBB: Eh, no. That would potentially, and currently does, kill innovation. Let's say I come up with the next greatest thing. I draw it out and receive a patent for it. I shop around to find a way to produce it, but I don't have the capital (think pre-Kickstater et al). Why couldn't I sell my idea to someone else? Otherwise, my idea stays mine and no one else is allowed to make the thing.

If you can't make it, you have no business patenting it.

So only large corporations should be able to profit from an idea? Bullshiat.


There are plenty of small inventors who have patented a product, manufacture it, and make money off of it. These small inventors are very different than patent trolls.
 
2013-01-28 09:06:28 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Internet Tough Guy:
This won't stop patent trolls but will deter them. Until we actually start killing them (literally, go to their offices in real life and shoot every mother farker there) this will continue.


That's probably why we never hear about Halliburton being sued by patent trolls.
 
2013-01-28 09:12:03 AM  

bighairyguy: Hey patent trolls, go buy up some gun and ammunition patents and chase those folks for a while.


Look up "Rick Jameson short magnum patent". The gun and ammo industry is slow moving enough that any patent that can survive court can also be waited out.
 
2013-01-28 09:18:04 AM  
Newegg was farking awesome to begin with. This is just a cherry on the top.
 
2013-01-28 09:23:08 AM  

nickerj1: You know how I know none of you (including apparently the district judge) read the actual patent claims and understand networking?

The patent claims have absolutely nothing to do with stateful vs stateless technology.


No, the patent claims are stateless, as you note. The prior art cited against it, Compuserve, was stateful and didn't use product identifiers in the message, as required by the claims.

HTTP did exist at this time and supported encoding shiat into the URL:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/AsImplemented.html


But what shiat? If you have nothing in the prior art that includes a product identifier encoded into the URL, then you're using the patent as a recipe to piece together the prior art in hindsight.
 
2013-01-28 09:44:13 AM  

JesseL: bighairyguy: Hey patent trolls, go buy up some gun and ammunition patents and chase those folks for a while.

Look up "Rick Jameson short magnum patent". The gun and ammo industry is slow moving enough that any patent that can survive court can also be waited out.


No joke, we still use rounds that were designed in the 1800 and early 1900's. Hell, we still use guns designed in those eras, and in some cases, built in those times.
 
2013-01-28 09:45:29 AM  
Theaetetus do you own stock in the troll company because I've never seen someone so passionate to show how wrong everyone else is on an internet forum?
0-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-01-28 09:49:31 AM  

kalor: Theaetetus do you own stock in the troll company because I've never seen someone so passionate to show how wrong everyone else is on an internet forum?


Yes, clearly, that's why I called their argument terrible. Seriously, you've never seen someone argue about something on the internet?
 
2013-01-28 10:22:30 AM  
I use NewEgg for 95 percent of our company purchase. Maybe I'll take it to 100 just to give them extra money!

I'm super impressed with everything about them. I didn't know anything about that background stuff until today.

Their system works very well - The email deals. The Shell Shockers. Wish Lists. The new ShopRunner system is awesome.
 
2013-01-28 10:23:02 AM  

kalor: Theaetetus do you own stock in the troll company because I've never seen someone so passionate to show how wrong everyone else is on an internet forum?
[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 410x307]


Astroturfer.
 
2013-01-28 10:23:19 AM  
Can we please stop all this technobabble and go back to calling each other names.
 
2013-01-28 10:42:36 AM  
It blows me away how many companies just pulled down their pants and let Soverain take them up the ass instead of fighting. Huge companies.

In gratitude they should send a one time payment to Newegg for the amount they won't have to pay Soverain in thanks for Newegg fighting their battles for them.

Then Newegg should send free stuff to their loyal customers, like me.

/Seriously, I cannot believe how big corporations are such pussies to patent trolls. Stomp them out and get on with real business already.
 
2013-01-28 10:43:56 AM  
The faster we drive these cases to verdict, and through appeal, and also get legislative reform on track, the faster our economy will be competitive in this critical area. We're competing with other economies that are not burdened with this type of litigation. China doesn't have this, South Korea doesn't have this, Europe doesn't have this

It sounds like patent trolls are a bigger threat to America than terrorists. We should seriously consider shipping all patent trolls off to Gitmo for some waterboarding.
 
2013-01-28 10:46:29 AM  

GBB: stiletto_the_wise: Simple solution: Don't let patents (or copyrights or other "intellectual" property) be assignable to a corporation or trade-able as assets. Joe Smith gets the patent in his name, it's his. Not one of 50,000 patents that Google just bought from Motorola who bought from WirelessCorpInc, etc. etc.

Eh, no. That would potentially, and currently does, kill innovation. Let's say I come up with the next greatest thing. I draw it out and receive a patent for it. I shop around to find a way to produce it, but I don't have the capital (think pre-Kickstater et al). Why couldn't I sell my idea to someone else? Otherwise, my idea stays mine and no one else is allowed to make the thing.

You know those nifty, semi-new smart chips in your credit card? No, not the RFID ones, the gold/brass contact thing. Those have been around for a long time ... in Europe. The patent holder in the US wanted way too much and wouldn't sell. We had to wait for the patent to expire. When they did come out, it was already old tech and fairly useless. Just imagine the tech we would have lost if we WEREN'T allowed to sell the patent.


I actually have a patent. I assigned the rights to the company I worked for when I invented it.

I have a solution to the patent troll problem.

As the inventor, I can assign the rights to a company, like now. But those assignment of rights become non-transferable. Company A has the right to the patent, they can license the technology, they can build the widgets, collect royalties. But they can't sell their rights, and in bankruptcy, they can't be transferred to anyone but me as the original inventory.

If my patent is extremely valuable, and important, then after the rights transfer back to me, Then I can choose to license the technology or assign the rights to another company.
 
2013-01-28 10:51:08 AM  

Farktastic: It blows me away how many companies just pulled down their pants and let Soverain take them up the ass instead of fighting. Huge companies.

In gratitude they should send a one time payment to Newegg for the amount they won't have to pay Soverain in thanks for Newegg fighting their battles for them.

Then Newegg should send free stuff to their loyal customers, like me.

/Seriously, I cannot believe how big corporations are such pussies to patent trolls. Stomp them out and get on with real business already.


IANAL but I don't think it works that way. All these companies that settled with Soverain are now going to have to sue to have their judgments overturned.

And the decision from this appeals court is appeal-able. They are obligated to continue to pay Soverain until such time as an appropriate Court issue orders otherwise. This will give Soverain cash flow to fight this decision.

Although, I have been waiting years for some Court to say "just putting the phrase 'Over the Internet' doesn't make some process patentable"
 
2013-01-28 10:54:29 AM  

weiserfireman: I have a solution to the patent troll problem.

As the inventor, I can assign the rights to a company, like now. But those assignment of rights become non-transferable. Company A has the right to the patent, they can license the technology, they can build the widgets, collect royalties. But they can't sell their rights, and in bankruptcy, they can't be transferred to anyone but me as the original inventory.

If my patent is extremely valuable, and important, then after the rights transfer back to me, Then I can choose to license the technology or assign the rights to another company.


I'm not sure that would address the troll problem - most of the big troll companies purchase rights from the inventors already, or have R&D labs where they crank out patent applications but don't manufacture technology (check out the This American Life story, for example). All it would do would be to complicate bankruptcy proceedings, like when Polaroid collapsed, but Polaroid certainly wasn't a troll.

I still say the proper answer is with regard to damages. We don't get outraged when trolls freely license their patents - we get outraged when we hear about multi-million dollar damage awards for a technology they're not even producing. So, the proper solution should focus on capping those awards, rather than making it difficult for them to license.
 
2013-01-28 11:01:09 AM  

Theeng: Always happy to see a patent troll lose.


This.

ThatBillmanGuy: Hope this deters other patent trolls.. But I doubt it.


Sadly, that.

JesseL: Patent trolls should be just behind Nazis and zombies as the top things it's okay to want to gleefully slaughter.


The other.
 
2013-01-28 11:03:04 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

I skimmed the decision and didn't see where there was any claim that Soverain was actually using these patents. In fact the original patents were issued for software that is hopelessly antiquated.

/kinda looks like you didn't read the article OR the Federal Circuit decision


He either didn't read them, or doesn't understand them. Sad either way.
 
2013-01-28 11:03:41 AM  

Glockenspiel Hero: I've always liked NewEgg- bought the parts for my last two desktops from them.

I'll have to order another soon- I'll make sure they get the business.


This. I'm looking to upgrade my rig with Windows 7 and then use a 512 gig SSD and liked their prices. So they'll be getting my business soon.
 
2013-01-28 11:06:16 AM  

weiserfireman: Farktastic: It blows me away how many companies just pulled down their pants and let Soverain take them up the ass instead of fighting. Huge companies.

In gratitude they should send a one time payment to Newegg for the amount they won't have to pay Soverain in thanks for Newegg fighting their battles for them.

Then Newegg should send free stuff to their loyal customers, like me.

/Seriously, I cannot believe how big corporations are such pussies to patent trolls. Stomp them out and get on with real business already.

IANAL but I don't think it works that way. All these companies that settled with Soverain are now going to have to sue to have their judgments overturned.


Depends what termination clauses exist in their licenses. They can be built in or left out - it really depends on the specific deals.

And the decision from this appeals court is appeal-able. They are obligated to continue to pay Soverain until such time as an appropriate Court issue orders otherwise. This will give Soverain cash flow to fight this decision.

And will be - it'll at least go to the full en banc Fed. Circuit.

Although, I have been waiting years for some Court to say "just putting the phrase 'Over the Internet' doesn't make some process patentable"

They've said it repeatedly. But there aren't any patents that claim entirely known processes with just the addition of "over the internet" as the alleged patentable innovation. You can paraphrase them that way, but any time you're paraphrasing, you're removing or ignoring elements. If those elements you're ignoring aren't in the prior art, then the claim is patentable, and it's that missing element that makes it so - not the "over the Internet" line.
 
2013-01-28 11:10:51 AM  

Maestro1701: Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

I skimmed the decision and didn't see where there was any claim that Soverain was actually using these patents. In fact the original patents were issued for software that is hopelessly antiquated.

/kinda looks like you didn't read the article OR the Federal Circuit decision

He either didn't read them, or doesn't understand them. Sad either way.


Yet another person with the "hurrdedurr Theaetetus didn't understand it (but I won't actually talk about the technology involved or rebut what he said because, really, I don't understand it)." It's okay, this stuff is complex, but you'll look a lot less stupid if you don't criticize others without ever showing that you know what you're talking about.
 
2013-01-28 11:17:50 AM  
Theaetetus: "If you have nothing in the prior art that includes a product identifier encoded into the URL"

Arguing the entire case should be hinged on whether the prior art can be proven to have used GET vs POST? That doesn't sound like a winner in a jury trial.
Attorneys may disagree on GET vs POST being a patentable distinction. Probably most would say "throw that claim in the application, just in case the examiner lets it fly."
But I don't think anyone would expect such a distinction to hold up.

Further:

"To order an item in the Mall, simply press the letter "O" followed by the item to be ordered."
http://gsbrown.org/compuserve/electronic-mall-1984-04/

How different does that sound from having the item identifier in a URL? "www.myshop.com/1234" vs "O 1234"
It's literally the difference between typing a product identifier into a command line prompt and typing a product identifier into an address bar.
And accelerators to save a prior command and let you recall it later, equivalent in function to a bookmark in this capacity, existed in 1984.

So you not only have to argue GET vs POST is relevant, in front of a jury, but that doing in a URL what previous inventions did in a command line, is relevant.
 
2013-01-28 11:23:41 AM  

ringersol: Theaetetus: "If you have nothing in the prior art that includes a product identifier encoded into the URL"

Arguing the entire case should be hinged on whether the prior art can be proven to have used GET vs POST? That doesn't sound like a winner in a jury trial.


Uh, no. That's not what I said at all. Product identifier. You can tell it's different than GET vs. POST because it has a lot more letters and fewer spaces.

"To order an item in the Mall, simply press the letter "O" followed by the item to be ordered."
http://gsbrown.org/compuserve/electronic-mall-1984-04/

How different does that sound from having the item identifier in a URL? "www.myshop.com/1234" vs "O 1234"


You didn't put a product specific identifier after the O, but rather an index to a list of presented items. For example, a store would show you ten items in an ordered list, and you'd type O 1 to order the first one. And when you go to the next page, or next store, you can again hit O 1 to order the first item displayed, even if it's an entirely different item. You didn't need to uniquely specify items, because Compuserve kept track of your session state and knew which list it displayed to you.

So you not only have to argue GET vs POST is relevant, in front of a jury, but that doing in a URL what previous inventions did in a command line, is relevant.

Or, you could argue the real differences, rather than your made up distinctions based on things that aren't true.
 
2013-01-28 11:35:29 AM  

Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

I skimmed the decision and didn't see where there was any claim that Soverain was actually using these patents. In fact the original patents were issued for software that is hopelessly antiquated.

/kinda looks like you didn't read the article OR the Federal Circuit decision

He either didn't read them, or doesn't understand them. Sad either way.

Yet another person with the "hurrdedurr Theaetetus didn't understand it (but I won't actually talk about the technology involved or rebut what he said because, really, I don't understand it)." It's okay, this stuff is complex, but you'll look a lot less stupid if you don't criticize others without ever showing that you know what you're talking about.


You have no idea what I do for a living, do you?

I don't have time to properly educate you. You couldn't afford me, anyway.
 
2013-01-28 11:37:37 AM  

Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

I skimmed the decision and didn't see where there was any claim that Soverain was actually using these patents. In fact the original patents were issued for software that is hopelessly antiquated.

/kinda looks like you didn't read the article OR the Federal Circuit decision

He either didn't read them, or doesn't understand them. Sad either way.

Yet another person with the "hurrdedurr Theaetetus didn't understand it (but I won't actually talk about the technology involved or rebut what he said because, really, I don't understand it)." It's okay, this stuff is complex, but you'll look a lot less stupid if you don't criticize others without ever showing that you know what you're talking about.

You have no idea what I do for a living, do you?

I don't have time to properly educate you. You couldn't afford me, anyway.


Plus, I don't patronize prostitutes, but thanks anyway.
 
2013-01-28 11:42:13 AM  

Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

I skimmed the decision and didn't see where there was any claim that Soverain was actually using these patents. In fact the original patents were issued for software that is hopelessly antiquated.

/kinda looks like you didn't read the article OR the Federal Circuit decision

He either didn't read them, or doesn't understand them. Sad either way.

Yet another person with the "hurrdedurr Theaetetus didn't understand it (but I won't actually talk about the technology involved or rebut what he said because, really, I don't understand it)." It's okay, this stuff is complex, but you'll look a lot less stupid if you don't criticize others without ever showing that you know what you're talking about.

You have no idea what I do for a living, do you?

I don't have time to properly educate you. You couldn't afford me, anyway.

Plus, I don't patronize prostitutes, but thanks anyway.


Nice try. But the only person in this thread who is demonstrably a whore is...you.
 
2013-01-28 11:50:41 AM  

Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

I skimmed the decision and didn't see where there was any claim that Soverain was actually using these patents. In fact the original patents were issued for software that is hopelessly antiquated.

/kinda looks like you didn't read the article OR the Federal Circuit decision

He either didn't read them, or doesn't understand them. Sad either way.

Yet another person with the "hurrdedurr Theaetetus didn't understand it (but I won't actually talk about the technology involved or rebut what he said because, really, I don't understand it)." It's okay, this stuff is complex, but you'll look a lot less stupid if you don't criticize others without ever showing that you know what you're talking about.

You have no idea what I do for a living, do you?

I don't have time to properly educate you. You couldn't afford me, anyway.

Plus, I don't patronize prostitutes, but thanks anyway.

Nice try. But the only person in this thread who is demonstrably a whore is...you.


I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "demonstrably".

/also "I know you are, but what am I" isn't the most persuasive of comebacks.
 
2013-01-28 12:23:25 PM  

Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

I skimmed the decision and didn't see where there was any claim that Soverain was actually using these patents. In fact the original patents were issued for software that is hopelessly antiquated.

/kinda looks like you didn't read the article OR the Federal Circuit decision

He either didn't read them, or doesn't understand them. Sad either way.

Yet another person with the "hurrdedurr Theaetetus didn't understand it (but I won't actually talk about the technology involved or rebut what he said because, really, I don't understand it)." It's okay, this stuff is complex, but you'll look a lot less stupid if you don't criticize others without ever showing that you know what you're talking about.

You have no idea what I do for a living, do you?

I don't have time to properly educate you. You couldn't afford me, anyway.

Plus, I don't patronize prostitutes, but thanks anyway.

Nice try. But the only person in this thread who is demonstrably a whore is...you.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "demonstrably".

/also "I know you are, but what am I" isn't the most persuasive of comebacks.


From your profile:

"No information or opinions given here should be relied upon for any purpose, as they are posted solely for (my) entertainment purposes only."

You actually think someone here may take anything you say seriously? That's so cute!
 
2013-01-28 12:30:27 PM  

Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

I skimmed the decision and didn't see where there was any claim that Soverain was actually using these patents. In fact the original patents were issued for software that is hopelessly antiquated.

/kinda looks like you didn't read the article OR the Federal Circuit decision

He either didn't read them, or doesn't understand them. Sad either way.

Yet another person with the "hurrdedurr Theaetetus didn't understand it (but I won't actually talk about the technology involved or rebut what he said because, really, I don't understand it)." It's okay, this stuff is complex, but you'll look a lot less stupid if you don't criticize others without ever showing that you know what you're talking about.

You have no idea what I do for a living, do you?

I don't have time to properly educate you. You couldn't afford me, anyway.

Plus, I don't patronize prostitutes, but thanks anyway.

Nice try. But the only person in this thread who is demonstrably a whore is...you.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "demonstrably".

/also "I know you are, but what am I" isn't the most persuasive of comebacks.

From your profile:

"No information or opinions given here should be relied upon for any purpose, as they are posted solely for (my) entertainment purposes only."

You actually think someone here may take anything you say seriously? That's so cute!


Ah, wisely tiptoeing away from your misuse of the term demonstrably. Smooth. Think anyone will catch on?
 
2013-01-28 12:37:14 PM  

Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

I skimmed the decision and didn't see where there was any claim that Soverain was actually using these patents. In fact the original patents were issued for software that is hopelessly antiquated.

/kinda looks like you didn't read the article OR the Federal Circuit decision

He either didn't read them, or doesn't understand them. Sad either way.

Yet another person with the "hurrdedurr Theaetetus didn't understand it (but I won't actually talk about the technology involved or rebut what he said because, really, I don't understand it)." It's okay, this stuff is complex, but you'll look a lot less stupid if you don't criticize others without ever showing that you know what you're talking about.

You have no idea what I do for a living, do you?

I don't have time to properly educate you. You couldn't afford me, anyway.

Plus, I don't patronize prostitutes, but thanks anyway.

Nice try. But the only person in this thread who is demonstrably a whore is...you.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "demonstrably".

/also "I know you are, but what am I" isn't the most persuasive of comebacks.


Behold. A great legal mind.

/
 
2013-01-28 12:38:44 PM  

Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

I skimmed the decision and didn't see where there was any claim that Soverain was actually using these patents. In fact the original patents were issued for software that is hopelessly antiquated.

/kinda looks like you didn't read the article OR the Federal Circuit decision

He either didn't read them, or doesn't understand them. Sad either way.

Yet another person with the "hurrdedurr Theaetetus didn't understand it (but I won't actually talk about the technology involved or rebut what he said because, really, I don't understand it)." It's okay, this stuff is complex, but you'll look a lot less stupid if you don't criticize others without ever showing that you know what you're talking about.

You have no idea what I do for a living, do you?

I don't have time to properly educate you. You couldn't afford me, anyway.

Plus, I don't patronize prostitutes, but thanks anyway.

Nice try. But the only person in this thread who is demonstrably a whore is...you.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "demonstrably".

/also "I know you are, but what am I" isn't the most persuasive of comebacks.

From your profile:

"No information or opinions given here should be relied upon for any purpose, as they are posted solely for (my) entertainment purposes only."

You actually think someone here may take anything you say seriously? That's so cute!

Ah, wisely tiptoeing away from your misuse of the term demonstrably. Smooth. Think anyone will catch on?


Are you really down to arguing about words that people use? Are you such a petty fark?
 
2013-01-28 12:40:24 PM  
www.yourlogoresources.coma1.twimg.comwww.tivo.com
/just sayin
 
2013-01-28 12:46:26 PM  

Glancing Blow: Can we please stop all this technobabble and go back to calling each other names.


Theaetetus: Plus, I don't patronize prostitutes, but thanks anyway.


Maestro1701: Nice try. But the only person in this thread who is demonstrably a whore is...you.


Good job, Glancing Blow!
 
2013-01-28 01:12:36 PM  

Kinek: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Theaetetus: Maestro1701: Voiceofreason01: Theaetetus: I read the article, but more importantly, I read the Federal Circuit decision. Did you read that? No. Shiat, that's like going to Fox News for your journalism and claiming you're better informed than the researchers involved.

I skimmed the decision and didn't see where there was any claim that Soverain was actually using these patents. In fact the original patents were issued for software that is hopelessly antiquated.

/kinda looks like you didn't read the article OR the Federal Circuit decision

He either didn't read them, or doesn't understand them. Sad either way.

Yet another person with the "hurrdedurr Theaetetus didn't understand it (but I won't actually talk about the technology involved or rebut what he said because, really, I don't understand it)." It's okay, this stuff is complex, but you'll look a lot less stupid if you don't criticize others without ever showing that you know what you're talking about.

You have no idea what I do for a living, do you?

I don't have time to properly educate you. You couldn't afford me, anyway.

Plus, I don't patronize prostitutes, but thanks anyway.

Nice try. But the only person in this thread who is demonstrably a whore is...you.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "demonstrably".

/also "I know you are, but what am I" isn't the most persuasive of comebacks.

From your profile:

"No information or opinions given here should be relied upon for any purpose, as they are posted solely for (my) entertainment purposes only."

You actually think someone here may take anything you say seriously? That's so cute!

Ah, wisely tiptoeing away from your misuse of the term demonstrably. Smooth. Think anyone will catch on?

Are you really down to arguing about words that people use? Are you such a petty fark?


What a great legal mind he is!
 
2013-01-28 01:13:51 PM  

jaytkay: Glancing Blow: Can we please stop all this technobabble and go back to calling each other names.

Theaetetus: Plus, I don't patronize prostitutes, but thanks anyway.

Maestro1701: Nice try. But the only person in this thread who is demonstrably a whore is...you.

Good job, Glancing Blow!


He started it!
 
2013-01-28 01:29:51 PM  

Maestro1701: He started it!


Maestro1701: He either didn't read them, or doesn't understand them. Sad either way.

 
2013-01-28 02:26:16 PM  
Man remember when Newegg was the computer site you referred all your friends to and not the dickholes they are today?
 
2013-01-28 02:48:51 PM  
I was sadly disappointed when they rolled out the Marketplace stuff. Im not buying a necklace and a couch from Newegg.
 
2013-01-28 03:25:25 PM  

Theaetetus: Maestro1701: He started it!

Maestro1701: He either didn't read them, or doesn't understand them. Sad either way.


That wasn't name calling. That was an assessment of your reading comprehension skills.
 
2013-01-28 03:37:39 PM  
Theaetetus: "You didn't put a product specific identifier after the O, but rather an index to a list of presented items."

Which had to have been mapped to a unique identifier. Is it patentable based on whether the unique identifier is user-facing?
And "unique identifier for unique resource" is core HTTP. Clearly implementing the public specification can't be (or be a key part of) what makes this thing patentable.

Theaetetus: "Or, you could argue the real differences"

Which are what again? Because you seem to be either arguing that "in the URL" is relevant (GET vs POST) or something along the lines of: their invention is patentable because it includes session management for a stateless protocol. Which seems to be an argument that implementing a widely understood and repeatedly implemented concept (session manager) on top of a stateless protocol is patentable, simply because no-one had done it yet for *this* protocol. That is, you're saying TCP over IP is not prior art for Session Management over HTTP.

So, if someone invents some new stateless protocol tomorrow, is it patentable when session-management is inevitably "invented" on top of *that*? Because it would be. And it would solve real (and inevitable) problems. Or would Soverain's patents prohibit that?
 
2013-01-28 04:05:21 PM  

weiserfireman: I have a solution to the patent troll problem.


If it doesn't include "You can't patent software", it's not a solution.
 
2013-01-28 04:26:36 PM  

E_Henry_Thripshaws_Disease: Patent trolls should be just behind Nazis and zombies as the top things it's okay to want to gleefully slaughter.
you forgot evangelical Republicans


Hey!  Sometimes we get better.
 
2013-01-28 04:37:20 PM  
Newegg is still one of the best places to buy from, but back in the day they were the only place to buy from. Always threw in a free shirt or paperweight or some trinket with each order and no one could touch them on price.

I had bought a Gainward GF4 Ti 4200 64MB card, one of a batch that was shipped out with bad capacitors, died after 3 months. Newegg handled it, anyone else would have told me to RMA to the manufacturer. They Fed Ex overnighted a more expensive Gainward GF4 Ti 4400 128MB as a replacement and a prepaid box to ship the old card back. Granted, that was like a decade ago. Several months ago I had taken a chance on a $4 Rosewill mouse from them, hey 4 bucks for a mouse with switchable DPI! They kept sending a new one till I got one that lasted more than a week. Now I have 3 cheap spare mice with iffy back buttons and one that works perfectly. Their customer service is still pretty good.

That Ti 4400 is still alive in my oldest remaining computer, Athlon 1.4 with a whole gig of PC133. Don't laugh, she was pretty damned fast in her day.
 
2013-01-28 05:23:24 PM  
So what? If you invent something, you deserve the right to charge others to use it. Just like if you manufacture something and sell it in a grocery store. If you didn't invent it, and you're making money off it, what right do you have?

The courts would have ruled against Newegg had there not been prior art.
 
2013-01-28 06:23:15 PM  

JuggleGeek: weiserfireman: I have a solution to the patent troll problem.

If it dtoesn't include "You can't patent software", it's not a solution.


I am still in debate whether software can be patentable or not. Some algorithms have been absolutely unique and game changing.

But it should require sample code of exactly how you implemented this novel game changing algorithm. Not just an explanation in high level terms about the problem you were trying to solve and the though process about how you are going to solve it with software.

Not dummy code either. Specify the programming language and demonstrate the function written in that code. Because part of the purpose of a patent is to advance Art and Science. If you can't teach us how you did it, how are we supposed to learn. Give me a functioning sample of your solution.
 
2013-01-28 08:28:24 PM  

Dallymo: This American Life's show on the East Texas patent suit business is worth a listen, if you've not already heard it:  http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-paten t s-attack


Thank you. It's actually where I got interested in the "how do you undo that?" side of the legalese.

Sim Tree: Actually, they already fixed that. Congress recently passed a law that specifically bans 'forum shopping' for patent lawsuits.


Theaetetus: No longer... Now, you can only join defendants if they actually worked together as a team. So those Doe and Microsoft cases are separate, and Microsoft can move the case to Washington where all the evidence and witnesses are and where juries are less anti-Microsoft.


Thank you. This gives me a good answer.
 
2013-01-28 09:14:19 PM  

KrispyKritter: little big man: Now if Newegg would just pay for return shipping on all the damned DOA hard drives they send out, I'd give them a medal.

in all the years i've known of Newegg and read comments of them in threads this is the first time someone has complained. sorry you've had trouble but that's still an excellent track record in my book. (no, i don't work there etcetera).


Anecdote: I ordered 3 drives several months ago for a raid, 2 one brand and one another (so as to try to avoid problems where I get all 3 duds). All 3 ended up duds. One was DOA, one identified OK but had trouble holding data, and one failed in a week.

I scored replacements locally that were fine. I wasn't particularly mad at Newegg; they gave me no problem at all with the returns (all done separately, as I discovered the failures). I did have to pay return shipping but it wasn't expensive.
 
2013-01-28 10:22:07 PM  

Theaetetus: CGI,
November 1997


Not that anyone will still be following this thread, but if you'd actually read RFC 3875, you'd have seen that CGI was actually in use several years prior to its acceptance as a formal standard - 3875 references CGI being having been used as an informal standard since 1993, and many of the concepts underlying it (such as passing query parameters via the URI) were defined in RFC 2396, which formalized URL/URI/URN definitions that had existed since *1990*.
 
2013-01-28 11:46:18 PM  

Theaetetus: Quantumbunny: Theaetetus: bahamasorbust: Your green 3 criteria must be very different from mine.

Y'know, you say that, but in 85 comments in this thread so far, including dozens calling me a shill or troll, not one has responded to my substantive comments about the technology involved, the difference between stateful and stateless models, or the error made in the decision. That's pretty telling, frankly.

You want a stateless vs stateful discussion? Here you go...
via using cookies locally

First used October 13, 1994

or pretty much any web language which provides user and/or sessions: ASP,
1996

CGI,
November 1997

PHP these are all stateful.
1995

And when was the patent filed? October 1994. I'm sorry, but thanks for playing!


June is the new October: FYL (from your link) The term "cookie" was derived from "magic cookie", which is the packet of data a program receives and sends again unchanged. Magic cookies were already used in computing when computer programmer Lou Montulli had the idea of using them in Web communications in June 1994.[6] At the time, he was an employee of Netscape Communications, which was developing an e-commerce application for a customer. The customer was MCI and the application was the "MCI Mall". Vint Cerf and John Klensin represented MCI in technical discussions with Netscape Communications. Not wanting the MCI Mall servers to have to retain partial transaction states led to MCI's request to Netscape to find a way to store that state in each user's computer. Cookies provided a solution to the problem of reliably implementing a virtual shopping cart...


Montulli applied for a patent for the cookie technology in 1995, and US 5774670 was granted in 1998. Support for cookies was integrated in Internet Explorer in version 2, released in October 1995.[11]


SHUT UP!
 
2013-01-29 06:08:45 AM  
I'm not sure what is more ludicrous about our society:

A) Patent trolls are not executed en masse.
B) A jury of my peers who are dumber than me exercise total control of this crap.
C) People actually get rich from this crap.

fark it, we'll do it live.
 
2013-01-29 10:14:25 AM  

GT_bike: Theaetetus: Quantumbunny: Theaetetus: bahamasorbust: Your green 3 criteria must be very different from mine.

Y'know, you say that, but in 85 comments in this thread so far, including dozens calling me a shill or troll, not one has responded to my substantive comments about the technology involved, the difference between stateful and stateless models, or the error made in the decision. That's pretty telling, frankly.

You want a stateless vs stateful discussion? Here you go...
via using cookies locally

First used October 13, 1994

or pretty much any web language which provides user and/or sessions: ASP,
1996

CGI,
November 1997

PHP these are all stateful.
1995

And when was the patent filed? October 1994. I'm sorry, but thanks for playing!

June is the new October: FYL (from your link) The term "cookie" was derived from "magic cookie", which is the packet of data a program receives and sends again unchanged. Magic cookies were already used in computing when computer programmer Lou Montulli had the idea of using them in Web communications in June 1994.[6] At the time, he was an employee of Netscape Communications, which was developing an e-commerce application for a customer. The customer was MCI and the application was the "MCI Mall". Vint Cerf and John Klensin represented MCI in technical discussions with Netscape Communications. Not wanting the MCI Mall servers to have to retain partial transaction states led to MCI's request to Netscape to find a way to store that state in each user's computer. Cookies provided a solution to the problem of reliably implementing a virtual shopping cart...


Montulli applied for a patent for the cookie technology in 1995, and US 5774670 was granted in 1998. Support for cookies was integrated in Internet Explorer in version 2, released in October 1995.[11]

SHUT UP!


He tends to have problems with reading comprehension. View the above thread. And will then, when shown to be wrong, double down on that point, pull out legal jargon that only has tangential relevance to the subject, handwave, insult.

Last thread I described the Lori Drew case, which he didn't believe was a real case, and cited it as one of the ways the CFAA was abused into prosecuting irrelevant crimes. When it turns out it was a real case, he started going off on how it wasn't wire fraud, and thus didn't count.

But good on you for following through and adding to the evidence that he's a predictive sack of shiat that will purposely obfuscate things to make sure that he's right.
 
2013-01-29 10:52:22 AM  

xkillyourfacex: If you didn't invent it, and you're making money off it, what right do you have?


Do you go to restaurants and slap the food out of the servers hands while screaming "YOU DIDN'T INVENT SANDWICHES! HOW DARE YOU MAKE MONEY OFF OF THEM!?"

OK, serious answer, aimed at a 7th grade reading level: software patents are often granted for really obvious things. Often there's only one way to implement something, and if some dickhole patents it, everyone else has to pay through the nose even though they would have independently come up with the exact same way of doing it because it was a)obvious and b) the only sensible way to do it.

Either we have to change it so that software can't be patented (as it is in much of the rest of the world) or we have to give the patent office a big enough budget that they can hire qualified people to review software patents and not grant the obvious ones.
 
2013-01-29 02:08:35 PM  

Gunther:

Either we have to change it so that software can't be patented (as it is in much of the rest of the world) or we have to give the patent office a big enough budget that they can hire qualified people to review software patents and not grant the obvious ones.


I'll go with the former.

/ software guy
 
2013-01-29 03:24:40 PM  

RatOmeter: Gunther:

Either we have to change it so that software can't be patented (as it is in much of the rest of the world) or we have to give the patent office a big enough budget that they can hire qualified people to review software patents and not grant the obvious ones.

I'll go with the former.

/ software guy


I am too, but there's a possible bad side effect of making software unpatentable: you could end up in the situation where a machine to do something with gears is patentable, but a machine to do the same thing with a microprocessor is not. Maybe that's better than the alternatives, though.

My solutions would be to shorten the terms (right now patents last essentially forever in "Internet Time") and possibly to make independent invention noninfringing (which would automatically get rid of problems with obvious patents, though I assume there's a good reason independent invention is currently infringing).
 
2013-01-29 04:22:53 PM  

Gunther: Either we have to change it so that software can't be patented (as it is in much of the rest of the world) or we have to give the patent office a big enough budget that they can hire qualified people to review software patents and not grant the obvious ones.


u18chan.com
 
2013-01-29 10:10:18 PM  

Theaetetus: [u18chan.com image 447x335]


The entirety of Europe, India, most of Africa and a lot of Asia doesn't count as much of the world?

/Yes, aware software patents are OK in the EU if they implement an industrial process.
 
2013-01-29 11:11:20 PM  

Gunther: Theaetetus: [u18chan.com image 447x335]

The entirety of Europe, India, most of Africa and a lot of Asia doesn't count as much of the world?

/Yes, aware software patents are OK in the EU if they implement an industrial process.


They're OK in the EU, India, China, Japan, Korea, Australia, Brazil, Canada... I'm sure there are more - I'm just going by the ones where I've recently had patents granted. Honestly, I haven't tried to get software patented in anywhere in Africa except South Africa, so I'm perfectly willing to concede any other country.

All of them "implement an industrial process", or more specifically, are transformative or tied to a machine. Software per se is unpatentable most of the word including the US. Honestly, the rules are identical in all of these countries, because they tend to follow on the bandwagon of the major producers. So, complaining that the US is different than the rest of the world with regards to software patents is either ignoring the law in the US or ignoring the law in much of the rest of the world.
 
2013-01-30 08:58:23 AM  

Theaetetus: They're OK in the EU, India, China, Japan, Korea, Australia, Brazil, Canada... I'm sure there are more - I'm just going by the ones where I've recently had patents granted.


I don't even know why you're arguing this. I said software can't be patented in "in much of the rest of the world", and you've responded by saying "Oh yeah!? well it can be patented in these countries in a limited fashion so I win!"

What you're posting doesn't contradict what I'm saying. Saying "in much of the rest of the world" doesn't equate to "the entire world" or even "a majority of the world". Some countries allow software patents. Some don't.
 
2013-01-30 11:25:55 AM  

Gunther: Theaetetus: They're OK in the EU, India, China, Japan, Korea, Australia, Brazil, Canada... I'm sure there are more - I'm just going by the ones where I've recently had patents granted.

I don't even know why you're arguing this. I said software can't be patented in "in much of the rest of the world", and you've responded by saying "Oh yeah!? well it can be patented in these countries in a limited fashion so I win!"

What you're posting doesn't contradict what I'm saying. Saying "in much of the rest of the world" doesn't equate to "the entire world" or even "a majority of the world". Some countries allow software patents. Some don't.


You started with this "the entirety of Europe, India, most of Africa, and a lot of Asia don't allow software patents," and I pointed out that that was false, at least as far as Europe, India, and Asia are concerned. I haven't tried patenting software in most countries in Africa, so I can't speak to that. My point, though, is that your fundamental argument - that the US should change its laws on patents to be like most of the rest of the world - is based on a false premise, because most of the rest of the world and the US already have identical laws on this.
 
2013-01-30 03:24:45 PM  

Theaetetus: nickerj1: You know how I know none of you (including apparently the district judge) read the actual patent claims and understand networking?

The patent claims have absolutely nothing to do with stateful vs stateless technology.

No, the patent claims are stateless, as you note. The prior art cited against it, Compuserve, was stateful and didn't use product identifiers in the message, as required by the claims.

HTTP did exist at this time and supported encoding shiat into the URL:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/AsImplemented.html

But what shiat? If you have nothing in the prior art that includes a product identifier encoded into the URL, then you're using the patent as a recipe to piece together the prior art in hindsight.


No, the claims don't say anything about stateless. The stateless vs stateful argument has no meaning in this case, not sure why the defense was drawn into it. Passing a product ID in a URL doesn't mean the claimed invention is stateless. A prior art not passing a product ID doesn't mean it's stateful. A prior art having stateful connections doesn't mean it doesn't pass a product ID in a URL.

And I didn't say the HTTP ref was anticipatory. The "shiat" it lets you encode is a query for anything you want, so that could be any farking thing and on the obviousness spectrum including a product ID is on the "blatantly obvious" side. All you'd need would be second ref with a URL that had a product ID in it, like... www.microsoft.com/penisenlarger5213.

This shiat would never have been allowed if was filed in a time of electronic searching. There's tons of patents that issued in the 90s that should never have been allowed simply because the search tools for examiners sucked and consisted of literally flipping through physical paper patents already issued.
 
Displayed 191 of 191 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report