or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ash471

Agreed...which means there is no moral justifcation for it.  I think the pendulum has swung to far against inventors.  The argument I always hear for why patents are bad is that they impede companies.  Ya right.  Apple is broke paying all those licensing fees and lawyers aren't they?  I have yet to have anyone explain which of Apple or Google's markets have been hindered.  Would we have gotten an iPhone or Android sooner if it weren't for patents?  None of these large...
I see you've adopted the politically correct "NPE".  To answer your question, the validity and infringement of a patent depends on what the words of the claim mean and many times it takes expert witnesses and a lot of work to figure it out. Determining damages requires discovery to know what the infringer is selling and the value of the products. These are really hard things for arbitrator to do. 
Great analogy!  I still can't figure out why society is so endearing to copyright holders and baneful of inventors.  Everyone is bending over backwards to extend copyright laws to make sure Walt Disney, who has been dead for decades, can keep his copyright on Micky Mouse.  The Consitutional basis for granting patent rights for a "limited time" is exactly the same for copyrights.  I'm not saying the term should be the same, but sheesh, what's the justification for such...
Two years is optimistic.  Patent litigation often takes longer than two years.
Arbitration is theoretically possible, but not practical in patent cases.   
As a patent attorney and inventor, I can assure you that the issue Cook raised is a HUGE problem.  Patent lawsuits are a horrible game of bury the patent holder with endless filings, depositions, summary judgement motions, expert testimony, etc. etc. etc.  Most of the time spent on a patent case has no legitimate purpose other than to waste money and delay.  There are rules that are intended to prevent abuse of the legal system, but they are very difficult to enforce....
I just articulated a well-reasoned argument for why trolls are necessary and good and that their existence is the consequence of bad behavior by large corporations. (see post 9)  Please try replying to Jragosta's comment (post 5) with an argument that has rational underpinnings.  Your use of "denier" and "never held any water" are just a cover up for a lack of persuasion or reasoning. 
Agree completely.  The reason trolls are necessary is because of the slow and expensive legal system.  Large companies that rip off technology (Google, Samsung, Microsoft, etc.) use legal costs to prevent legitimate patent holders from suing for patent infringement. A big company like Google or Samsung can make a patent lawsuit cost 2-5 million dollars.  How many small inventors do you know that have 2-5 million to roll the dice and find out if their patent is valid and...
The invitation should be to "date" not to "bang". Most people would find it tantalizing to find out a friend has a mutual interest in dating. If two people secretly want to date and they want to have sex, it will happen. My guess is that most women will be turned off by expressly requesting to "bang," even if she really wants to bang. It is no wonder these guys are trying to make an app to get sex. Their lack of women skills is all too obvious.
Why keep him?  Seriously.  The only reason these guys get paid that much is because a culture of back scratchers on boards allow it to happen.  The problem is shareholders have allowed the culture to develop.  Unwinding it will be hard to do.  Shareholders need to start somewhere.  Cut his pay to 6.9 million and see if he walks.  I assure you he is replaceable with probably even better talent for pay in the 2-10 million range.
New Posts  All Forums: