Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Network World)   Patent troll sues movie distributors for distributing movies   (networkworld.com) divider line 29
    More: Asinine, cellular network, Magnolia Pictures, Mark Cuban  
•       •       •

3016 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Jan 2014 at 12:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-30 12:04:11 PM  
There is absolutely nothing asinine about trolling movie distributors.
 
2014-01-30 12:32:03 PM  
The movie distributors should learn from Drew about how to deal with these people.
 
2014-01-30 12:44:04 PM  
These trolls are not smart.  Apple has taken a no-holds-barred approach to fighting patent trolls and they're fairly good at it.  Apple may seem like a juicy target given how stupid rich they are, but you're wrestling a grizzly bear.

There are few things in this world that are more ill advised than trying to patent troll Apple: like trying to compete with Apple, signing a business deal with Apple, or taxing Apple.
 
2014-01-30 12:57:35 PM  

Nuuu: These trolls are not smart.  Apple has taken a no-holds-barred approach to fighting patent trolls and they're fairly good at it.  Apple may seem like a juicy target given how stupid rich they are, but you're wrestling a grizzly bear.

There are few things in this world that are more ill advised than trying to patent troll Apple: like trying to compete with Apple, signing a business deal with Apple, or taxing Apple.


I'm hoping that as more patent trolling lawsuits get headlines, the companies being targeted will decide to fight every one of these and put these assholes out of business. They also need to get the lawsuits out of East Texas. They can't get a fair trial when the lawsuits are propping up the local community.
 
2014-01-30 01:05:24 PM  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act:
Prior user rights defense: If an individual/entity begins using an invention ('user') more than a year before a subsequent inventor files for a patent on the same invention, then the user will have the right to continue using the invention in the same way after the subsequent inventor is granted a patent, as long as the user did not derive the invention from the subsequent inventor. These prior user rights are limited in scope and transferability, and have limited applicability to patents held by universities.
 
2014-01-30 01:07:10 PM  

FourDirections: They also need to get the lawsuits out of East Texas. They can't get a fair trial when the lawsuits are propping up the local community.


This case was filed in Illinois.
 
2014-01-30 01:11:22 PM  
Another problem is that patent examiners often get confused as to what is obvious.
 
2014-01-30 01:17:09 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Another problem is that patent examiners often get confused as to what is obvious.


It's actually that they've got a specific legal test to meet before they can declare something to be obvious. They can feel certain, in their gut, that something is obvious, just like you can feel certain that OJ was guilty... but if they can't support it with evidence, then they can't reject the patent application.
 
2014-01-30 01:37:29 PM  

Nuuu: These trolls are not smart.  Apple has taken a no-holds-barred approach to fighting patent trolls and they're fairly good at it.  Apple may seem like a juicy target given how stupid rich they are, but you're wrestling a grizzly bear.

There are few things in this world that are more ill advised than trying to patent troll Apple: like trying to compete with Apple, signing a business deal with Apple, or taxing Apple.


I don't think a company that patents rounded corners has a valid complaint about patent trolls.
 
2014-01-30 01:42:37 PM  
Whether downloading an electronic file to a cell phone is obvious or not it looks like they filed their patent two years after other folks were already doing this.

IANAL but that doesn't look like the best footing to go after someone.
 
2014-01-30 01:48:16 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Nuuu: These trolls are not smart.  Apple has taken a no-holds-barred approach to fighting patent trolls and they're fairly good at it.  Apple may seem like a juicy target given how stupid rich they are, but you're wrestling a grizzly bear.

There are few things in this world that are more ill advised than trying to patent troll Apple: like trying to compete with Apple, signing a business deal with Apple, or taxing Apple.

I don't think a company that patents rounded corners has a valid complaint about patent trolls.


Design patents have existed in the U.S. for 160 years, and claim all sorts of rounded things. Is your complaint more about the fact that you dislike Apple specifically?
 
2014-01-30 01:51:57 PM  
I think the industry needs lots of good patent trolls or they'll keep granting these ridiculous patents.
 
2014-01-30 01:52:59 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Nuuu: These trolls are not smart.  Apple has taken a no-holds-barred approach to fighting patent trolls and they're fairly good at it.  Apple may seem like a juicy target given how stupid rich they are, but you're wrestling a grizzly bear.

There are few things in this world that are more ill advised than trying to patent troll Apple: like trying to compete with Apple, signing a business deal with Apple, or taxing Apple.

I don't think a company that patents rounded corners has a valid complaint about patent trolls.


They filed a design patent on the very specific and distinctive aesthetic design of one of their main products, of which they manufacture and sell millions and millions of units every year. The purpose of such patents is to prevent competitors and counterfeiters from copying your design and they have been around for a long time - see the curved Coke bottle for an example.

They're not stopping anyone from making a phone or smart phone, there are plenty of ways to make a smart phone without making an almost exact visual copy of an Apple product.
 
2014-01-30 02:14:26 PM  

Target Builder: Warlordtrooper: Nuuu: These trolls are not smart.  Apple has taken a no-holds-barred approach to fighting patent trolls and they're fairly good at it.  Apple may seem like a juicy target given how stupid rich they are, but you're wrestling a grizzly bear.

There are few things in this world that are more ill advised than trying to patent troll Apple: like trying to compete with Apple, signing a business deal with Apple, or taxing Apple.

I don't think a company that patents rounded corners has a valid complaint about patent trolls.

They filed a design patent on the very specific and distinctive aesthetic design of one of their main products, of which they manufacture and sell millions and millions of units every year. The purpose of such patents is to prevent competitors and counterfeiters from copying your design and they have been around for a long time - see the curved Coke bottle for an example.

They're not stopping anyone from making a phone or smart phone, there are plenty of ways to make a smart phone without making an almost exact visual copy of an Apple product.


That. The source of the "rounded corners" quote was actually from a related German case, where Apple said that Samsung could change  any one of a dozen different features and not infringe, and listed them, including the specific corner radiuses, button placements, bezel sizes, etc. For some reason, people picked out the corner one as if it was the only thing mentioned.

As an aside, Samsung ended up changing the bezel on the Tab 10.1N, and didn't infringe the patent. The corners on the 10.1N are identical to the ones on the 10.1... so clearly, Apple's patent can't just be on rounded corners.
 
2014-01-30 03:08:17 PM  

Theaetetus: Warlordtrooper: Nuuu: These trolls are not smart.  Apple has taken a no-holds-barred approach to fighting patent trolls and they're fairly good at it.  Apple may seem like a juicy target given how stupid rich they are, but you're wrestling a grizzly bear.

There are few things in this world that are more ill advised than trying to patent troll Apple: like trying to compete with Apple, signing a business deal with Apple, or taxing Apple.

I don't think a company that patents rounded corners has a valid complaint about patent trolls.

Design patents have existed in the U.S. for 160 years, and claim all sorts of rounded things. Is your complaint more about the fact that you dislike Apple specifically?


I don't like nor dislike Apple,  They are simply a company I do business with.  The fact is I still use their products because having access to all the stuff I bought for the last 5 or so years is more convienent then switching to another company.  The problem is that there is only two ways to design a rectangle.  Rounded corners or not rounded corners.  What happens when another company patents having sharp corners and now there are only two companies capable of making smart phones.  And what happens if Apple decides they want a patent on non rounded corners as well.

My objection to patents comes from the fact that they ban competition in the free market.  Competition is the one thing that benefits consumers over companies, and is something the government should be encouraging rather than preventing.
 
2014-01-30 03:12:37 PM  

Warlordtrooper: The problem is that there is only two ways to design a rectangle.  Rounded corners or not rounded corners.  What happens when another company patents having sharp corners and now there are only two companies capable of making smart phones.


As discussed above, your complaint is based on some FUD that was cherry-picked from one sentence in the German case and spread around to confuse people. When you add in all of the features that were in the patent, there are literally tens of thousands of ways to design a tablet that wouldn't infringe. Probably hundreds of thousands. I'm very sorry that you got taken in by it.
 
2014-01-30 04:04:16 PM  

Nuuu: These trolls are not smart.  Apple has taken a no-holds-barred approach to fighting patent trolls and they're fairly good at it.  Apple may seem like a juicy target given how stupid rich they are, but you're wrestling a grizzly bear.

There are few things in this world that are more ill advised than trying to patent troll Apple: like trying to compete with Apple, signing a business deal with Apple, or taxing Apple.


The only entities worse to sue over a patent are NewEgg and Mark Cuban.  And these guys have also named one of these entities in their lawsuit.
 
2014-01-30 04:06:39 PM  

Warlordtrooper: My objection to patents comes from the fact that they ban competition in the free market.  Competition is the one thing that benefits consumers over companies, and is something the government should be encouraging rather than preventing.


Patents are intended to encourage innovation and the publishing of ideas - without patents almost all processes, and products where possible, would be trade secrets guarded at all times because otherwise other companies could just steal the idea without having to front the R&D costs.

Hell - you would even have to keep the production methods secret from half your own employees so they couldn't just go an sell them to a competitor.

And then when the secret holders die their secrets die with them and have to be reinvented again by another person some time later.
 
2014-01-30 04:21:00 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Another problem is that patent examiners often get confused as to what is obvious.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-30 04:44:41 PM  

Theaetetus: Marcus Aurelius: Another problem is that patent examiners often get confused as to what is obvious.

It's actually that they've got a specific legal test to meet before they can declare something to be obvious. They can feel certain, in their gut, that something is obvious, just like you can feel certain that OJ was guilty... but if they can't support it with evidence, then they can't reject the patent application.


Which explains why there's so much BS in patent applications these days.
 
2014-01-30 04:50:54 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Theaetetus: Marcus Aurelius: Another problem is that patent examiners often get confused as to what is obvious.

It's actually that they've got a specific legal test to meet before they can declare something to be obvious. They can feel certain, in their gut, that something is obvious, just like you can feel certain that OJ was guilty... but if they can't support it with evidence, then they can't reject the patent application.

Which explains why there's so much BS in patent applications these days.


Yeah, and also why there are so many guilty people out on the streets. Much better in the old days when you could lock someone up on a gut feeling, right?
 
2014-01-30 05:01:46 PM  

Theaetetus: Marcus Aurelius: Theaetetus: Marcus Aurelius: Another problem is that patent examiners often get confused as to what is obvious.

It's actually that they've got a specific legal test to meet before they can declare something to be obvious. They can feel certain, in their gut, that something is obvious, just like you can feel certain that OJ was guilty... but if they can't support it with evidence, then they can't reject the patent application.

Which explains why there's so much BS in patent applications these days.

Yeah, and also why there are so many guilty people out on the streets. Much better in the old days when you could lock someone up on a gut feeling, right?


Take, for example, a patent Apple was recently granted for changing the channel on a TV.  The invention describes a simple weighed selection switch, which was basically invented thousands of years ago.  Apple took the simple concept of comparing two things and selecting the more desirable via the following language:

A method for selecting content performed by a media player receiving a plurality of content streams, the method comprising: receiving content selection criteria; receiving a plurality of first items of content associated with the plurality of content streams, wherein each first item of content represents content available through a respective content stream, and wherein each first item of content satisfies the content selection criteria; generating, from the plurality of first items of content associated with the plurality of content streams, a navigation stream that includes the plurality of first items of content associated with the plurality of content streams; providing the plurality of first items of content included in the navigation stream in a temporal sequence to the media player; detecting an input for content that includes a selection of a first item of content; and in response to detecting the input for content, continuously presenting, in a content stream at the media player, a plurality of second items of content carried by the plurality of content streams, wherein each second item of content satisfies the content selection criteria:

Patent for changing the channel on a TV?  Granted.

Ridiculous.  But it keeps patent lawyers in business, and that is apparently what matters most.
 
2014-01-30 05:53:46 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Take, for example, a patent Apple was recently granted for changing the channel on a TV.  The invention describes a simple weighed selection switch, which was basically invented thousands of years ago.  Apple took the simple concept of comparing two things and selecting the more desirable via the following language:

A method for selecting content performed by a media player receiving a plurality of content streams, the method comprising: receiving content selection criteria; receiving a plurality of first items of content associated with the plurality of content streams, wherein each first item of content represents content available through a respective content stream, and wherein each first item of content satisfies the content selection criteria; generating, from the plurality of first items of content associated with the plurality of content streams, a navigation stream that includes the plurality of first items of content associated with the plurality of content streams; providing the plurality of first items of content included in the navigation stream in a temporal sequence to the media player; detecting an input for content that includes a selection of a first item of content; and in response to detecting the input for content, continuously presenting, in a content stream at the media player, a plurality of second items of content carried by the plurality of content streams, wherein each second item of content satisfies the content selection criteria:

Patent for changing the channel on a TV?Granted.
Ridiculous.  But it keeps patent lawyers in business, and that is apparently what matters most.


Actually, that seems to be a patent on automatically switch around between a plurality of different channels based on a content criteria. For example, if you're listening to a radio and select "pop music", it'll provide a playlist of pop music from every station, changing whenever a station doesn't play pop music.

You can tell it's not just a patent for "changing the channel on a TV" because that doesn't include providing a plurality of items of content from a plurality of content streams in a temporal sequence. See, every word in the claim is important, and you can't try to distill the claim down to a "gist" or "basic idea" and then claim that it's obvious because the "gist" or "basic idea" is obvious.

For example, consider a car. Say Ford files his patent for the Model T, describing the engine and transmission system and all of the other features... Simply saying "patent on a horse and buggy, minus a horse" sure makes it look ridiculous, but it also completely disregards the invention.
Or, more generally, most inventions are [known step]+[new step]... If you ignore the new part, and just say "patent on [known step]? Ridiculous!", you're not actually addressing the invention.

Now, there's another issue here, too - once you  do address the invention, you have to provide evidence to show that it's obvious. For example, if the patent really did claim just changing the channel, you could show that people have been changing channels since variable frequency tuners. Then, it would be ridiculous for the patent to be granted. But here, since the patent claims additional features that you didn't address, you have to show that people did those  too. All you've essentially done is show that the [known step] part was known, and well, yeah, it was. So?
 
2014-01-30 06:21:56 PM  

Theaetetus: Marcus Aurelius: Take, for example, a patent Apple was recently granted for changing the channel on a TV.  The invention describes a simple weighed selection switch, which was basically invented thousands of years ago.  Apple took the simple concept of comparing two things and selecting the more desirable via the following language:

A method for selecting content performed by a media player receiving a plurality of content streams, the method comprising: receiving content selection criteria; receiving a plurality of first items of content associated with the plurality of content streams, wherein each first item of content represents content available through a respective content stream, and wherein each first item of content satisfies the content selection criteria; generating, from the plurality of first items of content associated with the plurality of content streams, a navigation stream that includes the plurality of first items of content associated with the plurality of content streams; providing the plurality of first items of content included in the navigation stream in a temporal sequence to the media player; detecting an input for content that includes a selection of a first item of content; and in response to detecting the input for content, continuously presenting, in a content stream at the media player, a plurality of second items of content carried by the plurality of content streams, wherein each second item of content satisfies the content selection criteria:

Patent for changing the channel on a TV?Granted.
Ridiculous.  But it keeps patent lawyers in business, and that is apparently what matters most.

Actually, that seems to be a patent on automatically switch around between a plurality of different channels based on a content criteria. For example, if you're listening to a radio and select "pop music", it'll provide a playlist of pop music from every station, changing whenever a station doesn't play pop music.

You can tell it's not just a paten ...


Shush.  As a litigator who usually defends companies being accused of infringement i support the new Marcus Aurelius system of Obviousness.  No more assessments of the prior art, no more claim construction and detailed understanding of what the patent claims actually cover.  No more detailed and difficult expert reports drilling down in to the minutiae of technical progress to determine what actually was understood to be the state of teh science in, say, transmembrane protein research circa 1998.

I would much rather look at a patent, reference the nearest thing that it sorta resembled and then declare it obvious.  This AIDS drug?  It's a chemical that makes you feel better when you are sick.  Heck ancient Chinese people knew giving people chemicals when they were sick would make them feel better.  That invention is 6000 years old.  OBVIOUS!

It would give me more time have fun in trademark land.
 
2014-01-30 07:09:42 PM  

ManateeGag: The movie distributors should learn from Drew about how to deal with these people.


Tell that to NewEgg.  They fought tooth and nail against a patent troll for the online "shopping cart" and lost.
 
2014-01-30 07:45:35 PM  

Theaetetus: Warlordtrooper: Nuuu: These trolls are not smart.  Apple has taken a no-holds-barred approach to fighting patent trolls and they're fairly good at it.  Apple may seem like a juicy target given how stupid rich they are, but you're wrestling a grizzly bear.

There are few things in this world that are more ill advised than trying to patent troll Apple: like trying to compete with Apple, signing a business deal with Apple, or taxing Apple.

I don't think a company that patents rounded corners has a valid complaint about patent trolls.

Design patents have existed in the U.S. for 160 years, and claim all sorts of rounded things. Is your complaint more about the fact that you dislike Apple specifically?


So you agree that Apple's patents should be tossed out on rounded corners due to prior art?
 
2014-01-30 09:44:28 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Theaetetus: Warlordtrooper: Nuuu: These trolls are not smart.  Apple has taken a no-holds-barred approach to fighting patent trolls and they're fairly good at it.  Apple may seem like a juicy target given how stupid rich they are, but you're wrestling a grizzly bear.

There are few things in this world that are more ill advised than trying to patent troll Apple: like trying to compete with Apple, signing a business deal with Apple, or taxing Apple.

I don't think a company that patents rounded corners has a valid complaint about patent trolls.

Design patents have existed in the U.S. for 160 years, and claim all sorts of rounded things. Is your complaint more about the fact that you dislike Apple specifically?

So you agree that Apple's patents should be tossed out on rounded corners due to prior art?


First, "prior art" is just anything in the "art" that's "prior". The Model T is "prior art" for the Tesla Roadster. The question is whether it's invalidating prior art. For design patents, that means that it gives the same visual impression to one of ordinary skill in the art of design. So, you tell me...
Does this:
www.patentlyapple.com
give the same visual impression as this:
www.figers.com
?
 
2014-01-30 10:26:39 PM  

Theaetetus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Theaetetus: Warlordtrooper: Nuuu: These trolls are not smart.  Apple has taken a no-holds-barred approach to fighting patent trolls and they're fairly good at it.  Apple may seem like a juicy target given how stupid rich they are, but you're wrestling a grizzly bear.

There are few things in this world that are more ill advised than trying to patent troll Apple: like trying to compete with Apple, signing a business deal with Apple, or taxing Apple.

I don't think a company that patents rounded corners has a valid complaint about patent trolls.

Design patents have existed in the U.S. for 160 years, and claim all sorts of rounded things. Is your complaint more about the fact that you dislike Apple specifically?

So you agree that Apple's patents should be tossed out on rounded corners due to prior art?

First, "prior art" is just anything in the "art" that's "prior". The Model T is "prior art" for the Tesla Roadster. The question is whether it's invalidating prior art. For design patents, that means that it gives the same visual impression to one of ordinary skill in the art of design. So, you tell me...
Does this:
[www.patentlyapple.com image 421x511]
give the same visual impression as this:
[www.figers.com image 425x415]
?


Considering I spend 95+% of my time looking at the front of the device, yes.
 
2014-01-30 10:49:33 PM  

FloridaWombat: Theaetetus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Theaetetus: Warlordtrooper: Nuuu: These trolls are not smart.  Apple has taken a no-holds-barred approach to fighting patent trolls and they're fairly good at it.  Apple may seem like a juicy target given how stupid rich they are, but you're wrestling a grizzly bear.

There are few things in this world that are more ill advised than trying to patent troll Apple: like trying to compete with Apple, signing a business deal with Apple, or taxing Apple.

I don't think a company that patents rounded corners has a valid complaint about patent trolls.

Design patents have existed in the U.S. for 160 years, and claim all sorts of rounded things. Is your complaint more about the fact that you dislike Apple specifically?

So you agree that Apple's patents should be tossed out on rounded corners due to prior art?

First, "prior art" is just anything in the "art" that's "prior". The Model T is "prior art" for the Tesla Roadster. The question is whether it's invalidating prior art. For design patents, that means that it gives the same visual impression to one of ordinary skill in the art of design. So, you tell me...
Does this:
[www.patentlyapple.com image 421x511]
give the same visual impression as this:
[www.figers.com image 425x415]
?

Considering I spend 95+% of my time looking at the front of the device, yes.


The second one has no bezel, no home button, no protruding buttons or switches on the top or side, no camera or LED, a different aspect ratio, is two-dimensional, etc...
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report