or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ash471

My point is that everyone should take a step back and ask themselves what is wrong with people getting patents for the purpose of extracting value out of whoever sells the product? Why should someone with market share not have to pay a tax to those that conceived of the invention first and disclosed it in a patent application first?Patents are the great equalizers of technology. The beauty of the patent system is that you don't have to be rich or entrenched in a market...
If you want to know what is patented, read the claims of the patent (they come after the disclosure and are numbered). To answer your question, no, you can't get a patent on a "concept" or an "implementation." You get a patent on an "invention." The invention can be a method, a composition of matter, a machine or apparatus, a method of manufacture, a method of use, a method of treatment, a computer program products, etc.
I know everyone uses the term "troll" tongue in cheek. However, it really is a derogatory term that should be avoided unless the entity really is a troll. I don't think we have facts that support an allegation that this patentee is a troll. A troll is someone that extracts a small fee by using unjustified threats. (e.g., an Ogre threatening bodily harm and taking money in exchange for safety) If a patent owner brings a legitimate claim of infringement, it isn't...
The patent is a reward for inventing. Selling products has nothing to do with inventing. The right of a patent is always granted to the inventor, not a seller. This is true whether you are Google or a small inventor. The engineers at Google that invent don't sell and the people that sell don't invent (usually). Why should the inventor's at Google get special treatment because there is a marketing department down the hall that sells their products? At the end of the...
Exactly! It isn't a big concern. However, patents is what drives our economy. The ability to obtain patents creates a continual threat to big companies like Google which makes them invent and prevents them from sitting on their laurels and using their market power and wealth to stifle competition. It amazes me how much people defend big companies as though they are poor souls getting pestered by patent owners. I've worked for and with big companies in regards to...
The first man doesn't sue for being "better than him". He sues for being the "inventor" and the first in time to disclose the invention to the public and apply for a patent. Google should have invented this first or not included the technology in their software or they should take it out. No one is forcing them to infringe the patent. Pay up or take it out.
If you don't like patents, go live somewhere that doesn't have a patent law, like Iran or Iraq. There is nothing wrong with an inventor exercising his or her rights to a patent. What's the point of giving an inventor a patent if they can't sue an infringer? The whole point of the patent system is that the first person to invent gets to "tax" or "exclude" anyone else. There is nothing preventing Google and Apple from stopping their infringing activities. The patent is...
This is fantastic. It is going to make the PC/anti-virus software paradigm look absolutely ridiculous. This is the security we need to justify using Macs in the corporate world. My IT department won't support Macs and they tell me I can't support myself because it is a security risk. If my computer is set to only install signed software, the problem is solved.
lol ...
Apple doesn't build hardware that goes to waste. The next iPad will have as much speed and as much ram as possible while maximizing battery life and minimizing cost. The calculation is complicated, but Apple is very good at it. It is utter nonsense for ya'll to look at one factor (the number of cores) in isolation. This thread is futile.
New Posts  All Forums: