Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents

Patent Troll Goes After Notebook Cooling 131

Posted by samzenpus
from the cool-before-you dept.
An anonymous reader writes "If you are manufacturing notebooks and you are using hardware that needs to be cooled down occasionally, you may be in the crosshairs of IPventure, which claims patent rights to an approach that is common in all notebooks today. For now, the company appears to be establishing its case by suing Fujitsu and Lenovo over the use of its invention in the Lifebook and Thinkpad series of products."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Patent Troll Goes After Notebook Cooling

Comments Filter:
  • by c++0xFF (1758032) on Wednesday July 06, 2011 @07:30PM (#36677034)

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/06/23/1419230/USPTO-Rejects-Many-of-Oracles-Android-Claims [slashdot.org]

    Not all of the patents have been overturned yet, mind you, but the case isn't looking good for Oracle.

    I think there's two reasons you don't hear of this happening: first, I think a lot of companies just settle out of court instead of going through the mess. Second, and more significantly, I think it has to be a high-profile case with companies that Slashdot cares about (such as Google).

  • Re:Submarine patent? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dachannien (617929) on Wednesday July 06, 2011 @08:30PM (#36677622)

    There is a penalty. It's called the doctrine of laches, and it essentially says that if someone's behavior was damaging to you, but you opted to wait an unreasonable time before suing so that more damages would accrue, then you may forfeit the right to collect some or all of the compensation to which you would otherwise be entitled.

    Now, it doesn't always work, because it's an affirmative defense, which means the defendant bears the initial burden to show that the plaintiff slept on their rights when they could have sued earlier. Some defendants look at that risk and opt to settle instead of trying it out on a jury.

  • by Dachannien (617929) on Wednesday July 06, 2011 @09:05PM (#36677924)

    Obviousness was one of several patent concepts that arose from the Progress Clause but that wasn't originally a part of the statute. Instead, it was formed as a judicial doctrine that viewed obviousness as contrary to the limits on the patent system in the Progress Clause (in the 1850 Supreme Court case Hotchkiss v. Greenwood [justia.com]).

    The concept of obviousness, along with the general guideline of "obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art", was later incorporated into the statute. In fact, many of the patent eligibility requirements were originally formulated by the courts and later adopted by Congress.

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie

Working...