or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ash471

And laywers should get paid. They are service providers. If they provide services they should get paid.It's just like if you plug your drain by dumping bacon grease down it everyday. If you call the plummer to fix it, expect to pay.Lawyers are glorified plummers for complex business transactions. The more complex the transactions, the more they charge.
Our patent system has been around and working fine for 200+ years. Our strong patent system is one of the pillars of our high technology society.  And yes, even in the 1800's people like Thomas Edison bought up patents from non-practicing entities. You anti-patent idiots rant about a subject you know nothing about. If this anti-patent sentiment continues, we risk shooting the goose that lays the golden egg.   Apple has $180 billion dollars in the bank and doesn't have a...
You're wrong.  The damage comes from the inability to exclusively license someone else.  Companies pay for patents to obtain exclusivity.  If someone is infringing the patent and the patent holder can't stop them, then the patent holder is damaged by his or her inability to provide exclusivity to a potential purchaser. And this damage is not trivial.  The only right granted by a patent is "the right to exclude." If you vitiate that right, the patent holder is left with...
Can you point us to a patent? If you investigate further, you will probably find that the cannabinoids, antioxidants, and neuro-protectants were isolated from their natural environment.  So for instance, the claim may be to "an extract".  And no, "extracts" with high concentrations of a neuro-protectant do not exist in nature. And if you want to use the cannabinoid in its natural state, the patent wouldn't prevent you from doing so. (and neither will the state of...
Have you ever read a patent claim? Patents are by their very nature are specific.  You don't claim a "product" in a patent, you claim an invention.  The iPhone is a product and it is made up of hundreds of inventions.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Critical features that a large percentage of the potential customer base need and Apple could easily add but they either don't care if people use the product or are being really stupid when it comes to knowing what customers need. These are not nit picky omissions.Maybe the problem is that culturally Apple doesn't usually ask its customers what they need. They build the product the customer will want. I think that works great for...
Of course I was polite. I made well reasoned arguments and requests on Apple support a handful of times over the last 10 years. I'm bitching now because it's been a decade and Pages is still useless for me.At one point I concluded that Apple didn't want to compete with MS in Word processing and intentionally didn't develop it. With the news that Pages will be platform agnostic, it appears Apple does want to compete. If so, they are being really stupid to not produce a...
I'm making the argument that Pages doesn't support the most important use type for getting wide spread adoption. If you don't make your Word processor usable for lawyers, you can't get significant market share and everyone ends up using MS Word.Do you think it is wise for Apple to build a Word processor that has a maximum market penetration of less than 1%? WTF?Why doesn't Apple F'ing fix Pages so that lawyers and their business clients can use it? Apple has its head...
Yes, and they are likely to lose the appeal. I suspect the real purpose of the appeal is to argue that the damages are excessive, not that they don't infringe. They may get lucky on infringement, but it doesn't appear to be their best argument.
No the USPTO would never allow a claim to a climbing route. It isn't patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because a climbing route is naturally occurring. Software IS NOT naturally occuring.
New Posts  All Forums: