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 67
    More: Hero, newegg, chief legal officers, Jones Day, software company, plain, Thank You for Calling, hardware stores  
•       •       •

24545 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-27 10:13:01 PM
8 votes:

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 10:09:45 PM
7 votes:
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
6 votes:
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 09:58:25 PM
6 votes:
Always happy to see a patent troll lose.
2013-01-27 10:36:24 PM
4 votes:
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 10:21:24 PM
4 votes:
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 10:17:43 PM
4 votes:
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 10:11:54 PM
4 votes:

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 10:03:12 PM
4 votes:
Patent trolls should be just behind Nazis and zombies as the top things it's okay to want to gleefully slaughter.
2013-01-28 12:52:14 AM
3 votes:

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.
2013-01-27 10:40:52 PM
3 votes:
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 10:36:59 PM
3 votes:

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 10:32:57 PM
3 votes:
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 10:10:46 PM
3 votes:
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 10:07:26 PM
3 votes:
Patents that should never have been issued in the first place
2013-01-28 03:37:39 PM
2 votes:
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 11:17:50 AM
2 votes:
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 12:13:46 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-01-27 11:51:04 PM
2 votes:

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 11:50:36 PM
2 votes:
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 11:34:21 PM
2 votes:
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 11:03:08 PM
2 votes:
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 11:02:54 PM
2 votes:
The legal system in this country is a mechanism for the transfer of wealth.
2013-01-27 11:00:58 PM
2 votes:

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 10:47:40 PM
2 votes:

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 10:43:43 PM
2 votes:
Newegg rocks!
2013-01-27 10:42:04 PM
2 votes:
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 10:39:40 PM
2 votes:

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 10:26:16 PM
2 votes:

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 10:16:12 PM
2 votes:

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 10:08:21 PM
2 votes:

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 10:06:47 PM
2 votes:
If only I'd filed a patent on the technique of patent trolling.
2013-01-28 12:38:44 PM
1 votes:

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 12:23:25 PM
1 votes:

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 11:42:13 AM
1 votes:

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 11:35:29 AM
1 votes:

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 11:03:04 AM
1 votes:

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 10:54:29 AM
1 votes:

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 10:42:36 AM
1 votes:
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 10:23:02 AM
1 votes:

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 10:22:30 AM
1 votes:
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 09:45:29 AM
1 votes:
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 05:55:27 AM
1 votes:
Theaetetus, defending patent trolls? Quelle surprise.
2013-01-28 02:38:46 AM
1 votes:
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 01:41:05 AM
1 votes:

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 01:00:46 AM
1 votes:

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 12:02:11 AM
1 votes:

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?
2013-01-27 11:59:26 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-27 11:51:12 PM
1 votes:
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 11:39:52 PM
1 votes:

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 11:34:07 PM
1 votes:

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 11:27:21 PM
1 votes:

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 11:15:20 PM
1 votes:

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 11:04:15 PM
1 votes:

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 10:52:54 PM
1 votes:

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 10:49:44 PM
1 votes:
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 10:42:02 PM
1 votes:
Patent trolls make corporate capitalist pigs seem sympathetic. That's how odious patent trolling it.
2013-01-27 10:39:36 PM
1 votes:
Copying Drew's "how about jack shiat and go fark your selves"
2013-01-27 10:39:05 PM
1 votes:

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 10:37:03 PM
1 votes:

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 10:36:18 PM
1 votes:

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 10:27:07 PM
1 votes:

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 10:24:14 PM
1 votes:

JesseL: Nazi


What about Nazi Zombies?
lh3.googleusercontent.com
2013-01-27 10:19:30 PM
1 votes:
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 10:16:16 PM
1 votes:
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 10:04:40 PM
1 votes:
Good, fark these assholes.
2013-01-27 10:01:56 PM
1 votes:
Hope this deters other patent trolls.. But I doubt it.
 
Displayed 67 of 67 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report