Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Newegg Patent Case 204
NormalVisual writes "'It's a really tough time to be a patent owner', said Soverain Software, LLC president Katharine Wolanyk, after the Supreme Court refused to hear their appeal after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated three of Soverain's shopping cart patents. Soverain had sued Newegg for allegedly infringing the patents in question, and had won in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Newegg later had the decision overturned on appeal, with the court ruling that the patents in question were obvious, and thus invalid."
aboloish software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
for the good of all humanity and the advancement of ideas in general
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Tough room.
Redefine "novel" (Score:3)
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Software would still be covered by copyright.
Huh? Newegg was not sued for stealing their software, they were accused of stealing the CONCEPT of a shopping cart. A concept that has been around for hundreds of years, if not longer (hence the prior art).
At long last a judge who is not impressed with the corporate idea that adding the phrase "on a computer", "on a cell phone", or "on the Internet" to a hundreds year old idea magically makes it a totally new, never thought of before idea.
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Software would still be covered by copyright.
Huh? Newegg was not sued for stealing their software, they were accused of stealing the CONCEPT of a shopping cart. A concept that has been around for hundreds of years, if not longer (hence the prior art).
At long last a judge who is not impressed with the corporate idea that adding the phrase "on a computer", "on a cell phone", or "on the Internet" to a hundreds year old idea magically makes it a totally new, never thought of before idea.
It's more than that - think of it this way: Soverain Effectively patented the most obvious way to walk to a store, put things in a cart, take them to the register and pay for them. Imagine some arsehole doing that to every person. Everyone has to find an unpatented means of going to the store, getting things to the "register" (which for the patent avoidance will be something completely unregister like) and paying ("I choose to steal from you, but tip you handsomely for having a nice store") It's beyond absurd - like most software patents.
Re: (Score:3)
Software would still be covered by copyright.
Huh? Newegg was not sued for stealing their software, they were accused of stealing the CONCEPT of a shopping cart. A concept that has been around for hundreds of years, if not longer (hence the prior art).
At long last a judge who is not impressed with the corporate idea that adding the phrase "on a computer", "on a cell phone", or "on the Internet" to a hundreds year old idea magically makes it a totally new, never thought of before idea.
It's more than that - think of it this way: Soverain Effectively patented the most obvious way to walk to a store, put things in a cart, take them to the register and pay for them. Imagine some arsehole doing that to every person. Everyone has to find an unpatented means of going to the store, getting things to the "register" (which for the patent avoidance will be something completely unregister like) and paying ("I choose to steal from you, but tip you handsomely for having a nice store") It's beyond absurd - like most software patents.
Some assholes are certainly trying - see the way that patent trolls for wi-fi were target hotels and resorts, rather then manufacturers.
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's a really tough time to be a patent owner"
And the world's smallest violin plays Katharine a little tune.
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately the RIAA has a patent on small violins.
See you in court.
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Funny)
Not on the violins themselves, simply the method required to play one. You can have it sit on your table all you want, but if it plays a tune ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"This is a door bolt. On a Computer":
http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/patents-on-bronze-age-technology/ [discordia.ch]
(So far the oldest thing I could find some people got a patent on. It's at least 3200 years old).
Re: (Score:3)
the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.
Patent:
a government authority or licence conferring a right or title for a set period, esp. the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention.
If I find a way to grow orange corn, and add a buttery salt to it, and sell it as "BringsApples Corn (TM)", then no other person can se
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
What's crazy about patents is that they're supposed to be for an implementation, like if I ask you to transport some goods one might invent a backpack, one a trolley, one a cart, one a bicycle, one a zip line and so on. Instead we have software patents that just describe a result and just says "However you implement this, it's patented". Often you don't even need to do the hard part, you just need to wait for someone else to figure out how then sue them. However for all the talk of patent trolls, most big enterprises like their own patents because big players use them to squeeze small players. The rest is just a cost of doing business.
Re: (Score:3)
And not just an implementation; the work must be somehow transformative, as in transforming one set of assembled items or parts to create a whole new invention, machine, gadget that mankind hasn't seen before. This idea that we're somehow transforming a general PC into a new invention every time some overly litigitious asshole programmer thinks some new software he wrote somehow transforms the PC into a new device; it can't continue to work and not keep a healthy, competitive business environment going, whe
Re: (Score:3)
Well there are a lot of big players that have patents for purely defensive reasons. They can say, no, we didn't copy your crap, we have our own patent. The troll is automatically put on notice that they not only have to fight big-corp but also the US Patent office. It stops a lot of trolls dead in their tracks.
A lot of the time, big players who hold a boat load of patents don't go looking for trouble, because it will cost them more to look, and enforce patents they they will make in revenue. Worst case,
Re: (Score:2)
If I find a way to grow orange corn, and add a buttery salt to it, and sell it as "BringsApples Corn (TM)", then no other person can sell corn and call it "BringsApples Corn (TM)", but they can grow orange corn, butter it with salty stuff and call it "Similar_Name Corn (TM)". Since I'd have my own recipe, your corn may not be as good as mine, or it may be better. Look at the similarities on the ingredients of Coke and Pepsi.
You are confusing patent & copyright with trademark - http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/ [uspto.gov] - when you want to trademark (TM) on the name you want to use for your product and others cannot, and trade secret - http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/trade_secrets/trade_secrets.htm [wipo.int] - your process/ingredient of your product that is not supposed to be disclosed to anyone but your own! Of course, they all are intellectual properties, but they are not the same.
Then you may need to elaborate about patenting
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Informative)
Not in the same fashion:
U.S. Code Title 17 Chapter 1 102 "(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 [cornell.edu]
So, where Congress extended copyright in 1980 to computer programs, that is different than the underlying method or process.
The Supreme Court held in this case that a payment system was too basic to merit patent protection and declined to hear the appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely.
Copyright protects software as a particular implementation whereas patents protect software as an innovative or inventive approach (that's the idea anyway). Anyone who copies a piece of software verbatim without authorization is going to fall afoul of copyright law. However, anyone who performs clean-room reverse engineering on that piece of software and reimplements it from an abstract level will not. In the latter case, the party performing the reverse engineering may still infringe on one or
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Show us some 20+ year old software that still works, is still used, is compatible with today's hardware, and meets stringent security standards today. Almost everything has been rewritten, forked, cloned, or whatever. Copyright doesn't cover concepts and ideas either. Copyright only covers a specific work. Tables and graphs for instance can be copyrighted, but that doesn't prevent someone creating a very similar table or graph to essentially convey the same and/or similar information.
Linux and Gnu are filled with re-ported software. Credit is given where credit is due, but ported software seldom runs afoul of copyright. Patents are an entirely different ballgame. Every dick weed in thirty countries claims to have a patent on a shopping cart concept, and they all want a piece of the pie from anyone who uses any concept that vaguely resembles a shopping cart.
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Not 20 years yet, but I'm still using a timeseal binary (for compensating for network time on internet chess servers) that was compiled in the late 90s. We're getting close!
I can still run old copies of XTree Gold in a DOS emulator. Lots of old software is still run just for entertainment purposes, not to mention all the COBOL much older than that that is still running.
These days you don't really have to upgrade your old mini you've been running since the 70s. You can also just emulate it on modern hardware and keep running your old apps. This is done... a lot. It isn't really the sort of thing most people want to brag about working on, though. It is generally quiet work.
The difference in term just isn't that important to this problem. The difference is that one protects a specific implementation, and the other creates a monopoly across a whole problem space. I'd rather an implementation be protected for 100 years than the whole problem space protected for 20. Even if both numbers are too high.
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like I'm constantly fighting my tablet to let me keep using apps for 1 month without updating.
No, android, you can't have any cheesy-poofs. No, android! My cheesy-poofs!
Software maintenance (Score:2)
Why shouldn't it be used? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Because it tends to keep getting creakier and creakier, and when it finally does break you're up the creek without a paddle because the parts and skills to fix it don't exist anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Software isn't in the physical world where parts suffer physical wear. It does now what it did 20 years ago. A lot of that code is FAR more tested and reliable than possible replacements.
Don't get me wrong, I've got a hankering to redo some of the COBOL based programs we've got here at work in something a little more modern too, but there's no question that the old code works - and works well. Any replacement would probably need to be in service a decade before it was as well tuned and tested as the origi
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:4, Informative)
The difference is that the Patent covers the method, while the Copyright covers the implementation of the method. Ten minutes of Google searches could have shown you exactly that difference as well as why it matters.
Copyright prevents me from stealing your work. Just like I can't steal Steven King's work for my own horror novel. Patents ensure that Steven King is the only person that can write horror novels or control who does. Yes, that analogy is correct and yes you could have figured it out rather easily.
BPP (Business Process Patents) simply needs to be repealed. It was an overreach to ensure that the lordlings took back all the serfs land.
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Try learning the difference between a patent and copyright before opening your mouth.
What's the last piece of software you wrote? Did you get it patented? No, you didn't. Yet you still wrote it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Furniture, fashion, and a significant portion of industrial design (such as car bodies) don't even have copyright or design patent protection. Yet those industries thrive. Almost all the furniture and clothes you buy are knock-offs of high-end designs. Yet those high-end designers didn't skulk home with their pen and measuring tape the first time this happened.
People who think copyrights and patents are necessary have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way free markets and capitalism work. If you're worr
Re: (Score:3)
Modern information theory addresses finally why wage deflation doesn't happen, and the wages just flatten and hiring goes down; because if employers lower your wages, a lot of people will quit. And the employer has no way of measuring how bad the economy is, how much pain the employees would tolerate, without investing in that information; either from a consultant, or doing a trial run and screwing a few employees and seeing what happens. Which can hurt morale in the whole company. Companies don't invest in
Re: (Score:2)
Try learning the difference between a patent and copyright before opening your mouth.
Who said anything about copyrights? Oh, that would be you, not the parent.
When one develops a patentable software algorithm, one generally executes it in "code", hence the parent comment referencing "writing code".
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the clarification, but I think for my point, the legal differences are immaterial.
The germane sections of the US code [ http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 [cornell.edu] ] in general state:
"(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. "
As I noted in
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
The incentive to create is in the money you make from having written and either sold the service that you're selling, or selling the software itself, or sometimes just from the good feeling you get from having made something that works. The latter item is what inspires most really good folks, honestly.
Patents are horrendously ineffective at their intended purpose of incenting innovation in a world where non-practicing entities (read patent trolls) have a vast number of patents and exist with the *sole purpose* being to get money from those patents, and NOT to actually use them. Often the patent is granted (with the application having been secret) years after others have independently gone and done the thing themselves, thinking it was no big deal, probably because *it was no big deal*!
Even worse, many patent holders wait to sue until the idea (or company implementing such) is successful, maximizing the damage.
Worse, most of the patents these days (and there has been an explosion of patents... why orders of magnitude more patents when we're arguably no smarter than we were 10 or 30 years ago??) are fricking obvious.
And of course there is the fun bit that NO COMPANY CAN DO A PATENT SEARCH BECAUSE THEN IT WILLFULLY INFRINGES AND MUST PAY TRIPLE DAMAGES. So, noone looks at patents who actually might use them.
Patents, especially in the realm of software, do more harm than good today.
Strike that. They're almost purely harmful.
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:4, Interesting)
After the AIA, the willful infringement aspect is gone - by searching and subsequently infringing you do not run into the willful infringement aspect anymore - you should as a result now always search for patents which you might infringe upon in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
Patents are not intended to stimulate others to innovate - only to protect those who have already innovated.
If I innovate then I have the knowledge that if I patent it I can protect my creation from being stolen by others while I have the ability to exclusively benefit from it.
Unfortunately in these days patents do not protect those who innovate, only those who legislate.
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to disagree.
Software patents, for the most part (I'd wager 99% of the time), are used to STOP someone from selling a product.
Do you know why Apple has that stupid "whole screen slides to the side" unlock now? Because someone put a patent on "slide to unlock"
Holy crap, what a dumb patent. Does the world benefit from someone hiring a lawyer and paying thousands of dollars, and spending months drafting a patent, just to make sure that nobody else could have a graphic of a "slide to unlock" widget?
What the fuck?
The world would have been better off if that lawyer was off... you know... affecting real law... and the coder was off... you know... writing code.
Re: (Score:2)
> Software patents, for the most part (I'd wager 99% of the time), are used to STOP someone from selling a product.
Speaking generally, that is all a patent does. ANY kind of patent.
Patent lawyers tell me that a Patent give the right to the holder to prevent others from practicing the covered invention for a limited period of time.
It doesn't give the patent holders the right to practice the invention because the patented material may just be an improvement to technology that somebody else has a patent on.
of course that's all a patent does (Score:3)
The goal of the patent system was to get people to disclose how they did something in return for a limited monopoly (as opposed to keeping it a trade secret and possibly losing the ability to do that thing if all the people that knew how to do it died).
I'd suggest that given the above stated goal, as soon as someone provably duplicates a patented process without foreknowledge of the process, then the patent no longer serves any purpose and should be declared null and void due to the fact that it's obvious.
I
Re: (Score:2)
The knowledge that something can be done is significant. It makes it easier for the second guy, even if he doesn't know how the first guy did it.
Furthermore, for most things it is not possible to have secret details of a product because the product's existence reveals all that's needed for a practitioner in the field to duplicate the product.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that from a software perspective, the only thing a computer does is perform arithmetic very, very quickly.
So as long as all you're doing math, there's no way someone can claim that nobody else knew a computer could do math, until they proved that a computer could do math.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you'll be happy with the SCt. here. In this instance, they stated that you can't patent something so basic and obvious.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-13/internet-patent-owner-loses-high-court-bid-to-revive-suit.html [bloomberg.com]
"The U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed an electronic-commerce patent owner’s effort to revive a $2.5 million verdict against Internet retailer Newegg Inc., in a case with implications for dozens of other companies.
The justices refused to hear closely held Soverain Software LLC’
Re: (Score:3)
That wouldn't by any chance be, well, Apple.. would it?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/25/apple_unlock_patent/ [theregister.co.uk]
http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/10/3479550/apple-expands-patent-coverage-on-slide-to-unlock-feature [theverge.com]
Though their effort to put it to legal use in Europe fizzled.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/04/04/apples-slide-to-unlock-patent-invalidated-in-german-litigation [appleinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know why Apple has that stupid "whole screen slides to the side" unlock now?
All I know is that more than half the time, the screen stops halfway during the slide and it wastes my time and makes the iPhone look and feel shoddy.
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:4, Funny)
All I know is that more than half the time, the screen stops halfway during the slide and it wastes my time and makes the iPhone look and feel shoddy.
"Here at Apple, we care about security. We care so much about security, in fact, that we refuse access to not only thieves and hackers but to our Valued Customers too!"
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I just mentionned it: http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/patents-on-bronze-age-technology/ [discordia.ch] There's more than 3000 years old prior art on that.
Re: (Score:3)
The same place as the incentive for people to get up and go to work every day.
You do something - make something - you get paid. The government doesn't have to give you special protections so that if you work for one day for a company you will be paid in perpetuity, does it? So why should an inventor or content creator be paid in perpetuity?
There are efforts underway by IP maximalists to extend IP pr
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely disagree.
What you're saying is, without the protection and direct subsidy of the government, those technologies could not compete or succeed. That sounds like an argument to make such research and development publicly funded.
Plus, the profits they could make in a few years could easily pay for the 10 years it takes to produce.
Even if those certain cases did deserve some additional protection and subsidy, the max sh
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
But where's the incentive for the creative mind to write the software, bring it to market, support it, etc.? It looks like pretty hard work that isn't certain to pay off.
I understand free as in speech and free as in beer, but there is no free as in groceries. Even coders need to pay rent.
If you want to make the life of the patent shorter or non-renewable, with the goal to not stifle innovation on top of older patents, maybe. But everyone should have a shot at the brass ring.
People with creative minds have been creating things and profiting from those creations for thousands of years. This was going on long before patents of any kind existed. Patents stifle creativity and innovation. Software patents are some of the worst.
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
But where's the incentive
You've surely heard this before, but let's go over it again. Patents are only one means of maybe making money off an invention. They don't work very well. Indeed, many companies choose to keep crucial insights secret, rather than trust to the patent system. That's one reason why so many patents are for trivial and obvious things. They know there's no use keeping the trivial and obvious secret. Instead, they rush to file patents on the trivial and obvious, before someone else does. Most of all, there are many other ways to profit from invention. There is the first mover advantage. There is making the world a better place, which benefits all, including the inventors. The mercenary view of human nature, that no one does anything for free, and that it is of no possible benefit to give and get nothing in return and therefore irrational to be "nice", is not only harsh and shallow, but not at all realistic and quite wrong. Nice guys don't finish last, and can and often do reap benefits from being nice. Then there are many forms of patronage. There are awards, grants, and prizes. There is advertising and endorsements. If patents were abolished, people would keep right on inventing, and profiting from their inventions. If we feel more incentive is needed, we can easily expand public patronage. Doesn't have to be government run either, such organizations can be private. Kickstarter and Indiegogo are private.
Patents are suppose to encourage progress, but they have far too often had the opposite effect. They are deliberately used to lock technology away, out of fear and greed. They provoke our worst impulses, leading inventors to think they own ideas that are the work of many, and get to control everything related to it out of a nutty notion that they deserve a cut of every way in which an invention increases profit or savings, and this control is the best way to insure they get what they deserve no matter how much that impacts 3rd parties who have nothing to do with any agreements made or disputes that may arise.
Remember that the courts actually proposed shutting the Blackberry network down, to make up for the supposed harm a patent troll suffered, failing to appreciate the harm this would cause the innocent customers who used it. And remember that SCO actually demanded that Linux users pay them licensing fees, when any such fees, if owed at all, should have come from the actual-- actual, not "theoretical"-- profits of the creators and distributors of Linux, not the users. What the actions of the likes of SCO were saying is not only that patents were wanted, they weren't good enough and needed to be stronger! A remedy like that is like proposing to tow every car in the neighborhood because one of the residents was accused of speeding. Also remember how patents have been abused to cover up problems, as in the case of Dmitry Sklyarov and many others, and to squelch honest compeition as in many cases including one about garage door openers. It's incredible that DRM is still as lively as it is, since it plain does not work, and it's the fault of bad lawmaking including patent law that DRM hangs on to life. It's time patents were ended. They do a lot of bad things, and what little good they do is doubtful at best. They cost us a great deal of money to enforce and argue about in court. If not abolished, then they should at least not come with monopoly grants enforced at great taxpayer expense. Reform would help, but the better direction to take is abolishment. We'll never be free of legal harassment and interference in genuinely new research for so long as these tools exist.
Re: Abolish software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
There are serious doubts as to whether software patents in general should be allowed. Technically, software is algorithms which can be expressed as mathematics, and therefore not patentable. Practically, software patents are used almost exclusively by patent trolls and large companies in a way that inhibits creativity, new applications, and product development. This is precisely the opposite the intentions of the original patent law.
New Zealand has recently prohibited software patents. Maybe the U.S. and the rest of the world will come to their senses and follow suit.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is obvious ... (Score:2, Funny)
... to the District Court in Eastern Texas.
Re:Nothing is obvious ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... to the District Court in Eastern Texas.
Except the value of doing massive amounts of patent-related litigation... It's the white-collar equivalent of those little shithole towns where prisons are the engine of economic life.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the equivalent of certain other counties in State courts where class actions were being filed, courts that were VERY friendly to the plaintiff's bar.
CAFA [the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. ss 1332(d), 1453, and 1711–1715] stopped hometown litigation. It brought any action under FRCP 23 [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (deals with class actions)] into federal court and brought a level playing field to the area of the law.
Since there is so much money involved in patents, having
Re: (Score:2)
Since there is so much money involved in patents, having a separate court system [like the bankruptcy court] might make that area of the law more fair.
It would most likely either be more fair, or less. I say lets try it. If it is worse, it will encourage further changes.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was supposed to have done.
TRIPLE MEGA EPIC FAIL.
It's FAR FAR worse than the district courts. It's responsible for a LOT (if not most) of the patent problems we have now including and not restricted to business process patents.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to repeat my suggestion, that federal civil cases be assigned by lottery to a random federal court, so there is no 'venue shopping'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't really compute there. You're assuming both that patents never work without things going to litigation, that when they are litigated that it's only about "obviousness," and that in every patent case (the vast majority of which I am sure you are unfamiliar with) the courts "ignore" obviousness.
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod: +1 Hopeful.
"Patents for selling online and taking payments" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The next story out of the pipeline involves Google's patent for tangible contraption.
Re:"Patents for selling online and taking payments (Score:5, Interesting)
I will keep suggesting:
1. If it's done in the real world, a simulation or work-alike is not patentable per se.
2. If it's done over a hardline network, doing it wirelessly is not patentable.
3. If it's done on a PC, doing it on a tablet or phone or (tbd) is not inherently patentable.
This is not to say clever implementations could not be patented, but merely changing venue (device, network type, or making a simulation of a real-world thing) is in no way innovative in an obvious sense.
Re:"Patents for selling online and taking payments (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not a problem for the trolls.
See, I have the patent on doing X using a phone line. Now that the world has moved on, I can enforce my patent on more and more things thanks to the Doctrine of Equivalents. The internet is just like a phone line. Wireless is just like a phone line. It's totally the same thing, so even though I lacked the foresight or imagination or inventiveness to write these options into my patent, I deserve to continue to receive patent protection against these products created by other people using newfangled modern technology that I was just too busy resting on my laurels and years of patent protection to bother to invent.
-- PanIP, the original ecommerce patent troll, which held the internet hostage thanks to a patent on selling real estate (or anything like that) over a phone line (or anything like that) using a data processing terminal associated with the selling institution (or not associated, as the case may be).
Eliminating the Doctrine of Equivalents will go a LOOOONG way towards restoring fairness to the patent process. If my product does not match word for word your patent, then you picked the wrong words.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny thing is that this so called Doctrine of Equivalents should also bring in a shitload of prior art if someone tries to tack on "on the internet" or "on a computer" to a previously patented invention.
Re: (Score:3)
Doctrine of Equivalents does not apply to prior art. Prior art has to be exact. If they were as persnickety about finding infringement as they were about finding prior art, the problem would be much less. If they were as expansive about ruling something non-novel or non-obvious based on prior art as they are about finding infringement, the problem would be much, much less.
But instead it's novel and non-obvious if no one has described the exact same thing using the exact same words. But contrariwise, som
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good, a very simple sounding solution that uses weasel words like "per se" and a followup weasel statement.
You have to realize, surely, that if you can't quantify the "per se" and "clever" parts in less than a thousand words, it would be impossible to write such limits into law in less than that number of words.
The simple act of defining patent trolls, while avoiding being unfair to entities such as universities and individual investors who have no time nor desire to go into production just to have prote
Since I'm in a generous mood... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy Crap! A sensible Supreme Court ruling (Score:4, Funny)
I think monkeys just flew out of my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn't a ruling.
It has the same effect. By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court has essentially agreed with the Appeals Court ruling.
That East Texas Federal District Courthouse (Score:3)
...Needs to be burned to the ground, the judges impeached, and the earth it sits on SALTED!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the Texas courts (ie: Texas). It's the FEDERAL judges that were nominated by Presidents for that district.
The state and locality has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, I doubt the local farmers know anything about the details. Lets just send all the lawyers in that county to a re-education camp.
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone should go to forced labor re-education camps it should be lawyers IN GENERAL.
Of course no one will hear the case (Score:2)
The patents are invalid. There can be no infringement.
They should be forced to give back all the money they've undoubtedly extorted from other companies in out of court settlements before Newegg stood up to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He said SHOULD, didn't say WILL.
It's a tough time to be a pile of shit... (Score:2)
Links to Patents (Score:5, Informative)
#5909492 [uspto.gov] - The most long-winded description of every online store ever, much of it seems to be copied & pasted straight from the top link.
#7272639 [uspto.gov] - Describes what a session is.
Soverain Software is just another patent troll that never should have had them assigned in the first place.
I patent useing the letter E on line only $0.002 a (Score:2)
I patent useing the letter E on line only $0.002 a use
no, it's a really tough time to... (Score:5, Insightful)
Have some weak low-quality patents, and try to, through the power of wishful thinking, extend them to cover a much broader set of techniques, then go and sue a big company with deep pockets. (Remember, this used to work, reference the suit against RIM for instance.)
Patent Owner (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice how Katharine Wolanyk characterized her company as a "patent owner"?
Funny that she did not say "online retailor", "online wholesaler", manufacturer, logistics, refiner, service provider, software publisher, etc. Instead they are a "patent owner".
Patents should be viewed the way most businesspeople view lawyers. A necessary evil. Too expensive, wasteful, a time sink. They exist primarily because not having them is worse. However never, never should they be your primary business. Unless you are a legal firm of course.
"Patent owner". You might as well say "shoe wearer" or "food liker"! Where's the value added in that?
Re: (Score:3)
Patents should be viewed the way most businesspeople view lawyers. A necessary evil. Too expensive, wasteful, a time sink.
Yeah, that's how we attorneys get most of our expensive business litigation cases. Business owners ignore legal counsel until they are in WAY too deep over their heads. Attorneys are like business consultants, but usually more important. Failing to seek and heed legal counsel is the number one cause of giant expensive messes for small and medium businesses. Large businesses and well-run medium ones don't have this problem, because they use their legal counsel to guide their decision-making appropriately
problem with the system (Score:3)
The point of the patent system (as I understand it at least) is to ensure that information doesn't get lost. Thus, rather than keeping things as trade secrets (where information could get lost if the wrong people died) they make the information public in return for a limited monopoly.
Given the above, if I independently (without seeing the patent) invent something, how is it at all rational or logical that I should pay someone else because they happened to have done it first? That doesn't serve the above g
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately some people are so greedy that copyright protection isn't enough incentive for them to make their ideas public.
In this case, I would also opine that the idea isn't worth its cost anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the purpose of the patent system is to encourage invention.
Re: (Score:3)
Failing to seek and heed legal counsel is the number one cause of giant expensive messes for small and medium businesses.
Funnily enough seeking legal council every time you do anything is very expensive. If you start that way you'll never make it up to being a medium sized business becase you'll spend all your money on lawyers and none on doing business.
At some point you have to make a judgement over whether it's worth seeking counsel or not.
you know what would be really cool (Score:2)
if newegg stopped trying to be a ghetto amazon so I dont have to waste time filtering down to just newegg. But it doesnt matter, the last 3 orders I have bought from them were screwed up, and it took nearly 3 months to get some VGA cables, so fuck-em anyway I dont have the time or patience for their crap anymore
Re: (Score:3)
I've never had a bad experience with their third party sellers, probably because I check a single checkbox on the sidebar to show only products sold by Newegg. There is no drilling at all, any time you click on search options, they get added to your options in the sidebar, and with one click you can narrow your search at any time.
If you're in a hurry, don't aim for the lowest price. If I want the lowest price on cables, I buy from ebay where it says "mailed directly from Hong Kong" and they show up in 3-30
Re: (Score:2)
I was in a hurry, that is why I checked from newegg, they left them out, I sent an email, no response, 3 months later a china box shows up with 2 vga cables in it
that order was a handfull of accessories totaling almost a grand (know how many USB hubs and wifi cards that is) and the vga cables were "eh while I am here grab them"
monoprice for cables (Score:2)
Never had a problem...
"'It's a really tough time to be a patent owner' (Score:2)
Boo fucking hoo, you damned troll.
Why software patents exist at all (Score:5, Informative)
Back in the day, software was not patentable as it was treated akin to a mathematical formula. The one patent I was aware of was a patent Atari snuck through by designing a circuit that XOR'ed a bit pattern to change the color a TV was displaying to avoid burn in. They patented the circuit and tucked a sentence into the patent that said they also claimed any implementation in software as well but the primary patent was for the circuit. We relied on copyright protection and pretty much ignored patents. Then the Supreme Court made a few rulings that opened the door to the possibility of patenting software.
Following up on the rulings, the Patent Office embarked on a series of "hearings" held around the country ostensibly to see whether it was a good idea to patent software or not. This was sometime in the early 90's. Towards the end of their tour, they finally brought their dog and pony show to San Jose.
Literally, almost *EVERY* developer testified that it was a really bad idea. The one exception that I recall was some idiot with a beauty salon app that would show you what you would look like with various hair styles. The rest of the developers said "No. We don't want this - it's a really, really, bad idea." Several developers made the point that we weren't constrained by a paucity of ideas as much as choosing which ideas to implement well.
The other group that was there in some numbers were attorneys - I recall Borland sent their corporate attorney. To a man, the attorneys all testified in favor of the idea.
Towards the end of the testimony, one of the developers pointed out the fact that the only people who seemed to like the idea were the attorneys. At which point, the Patent Office person (can't remember his name but iirc he headed the department at the time.) grinned and said something to the effect that the attorneys tended to get their way.
And they did. The people whom patents ostensibly protected were ignored in favor of the attorneys.
Re: (Score:3)
No such thing as "patent owner" (Score:3)
There is no such thing as "patent owner". You could be "patent holder" - in that you hold it at the pleasure of the public which allows you to do so for the public good. Nice term substitution there.
Hard to be a crook, erh, patent owner? (Score:2)
It's getting harder and harder to live off the work of others by abusing patents as blackmail devices?
Let's hope so.
um, no. (Score:2)
TFTFY