or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ash471

The materials costs are lower than the sale price so theoretically they may turn a profit with sufficient number of sales. Although $80 isn't very much to work with, especially if they want to sell through any retailers.
Rick, there are most definitely patents out there that are invalid. In fact, the more ambiguous a patent is, the more likely it will be litigated. The clearly defined patents tend to get licensed because both sides know the outcome without litigation. If a patent is invalid, then invalidate it. If it isn't, then license it if you want to practice it. If someone doesn't want to deal with patent issues, then may I suggest that person not work in high technology in the...
The attempt to get rid of small inventors (or non-practicing inventors) has caused the "patent trolls" to enter the fray. I agree that many of their practices are less than noble. However, those that tried to ruin the patent system are getting their just reward. The rule of unintended consequences is at play here. I think Apple is leading the way back to reality by being willing to buy up patents. The trolls are only effective if nobody competes for purchasing...
You are correct that the States had a lot more power at the Founding of the country. However, I'm not sure that everyone thought it should be that way. The Federalists clearly anticipated the Federal government being very powerful. In fact, many of the states feared the Constitution gave the Federal government too much power, which is why we have the Bill of Rights.
The problem is money. The Patent Office generates plenty of revenue to do a good job but Congress uses the patent fees as its personal piggy bank to fund project that have nothing to do with patents. The patent office raised fees a few years ago and Congress said "thanks, we could use the extra cash". This is quite infuriating. The patent office has a hard time retaining good examiners. Many of the good ones leave after a few years and go to law school. Private...
It is well-established law that patent infringement does not require copying. Copying can be evidence of willful infringement, but copying is not a requirement to establish infringement. In fact, the infringer doesn't even have to be aware of the patent. There are lots of reasons why the law is this way and this forum isn't the place to discuss them. As for your comments about independent inventorship.....Two people can invent the same thing. In fact, simultaneous...
It was software. And yes, the rat race to get a patent is fraught with difficulties. There may be two equally qualified inventors that invent a day apart and only one will get the patent. Patent applications don't publish for 18 months so maybe this particular invention is already out there. We'll know soon enough. Of course, if you want to win the race, it helps to hire good patent counsel. =)
I didn't see anything specific to IP purchases. However, I think you're right. Collaborative purchases of IP can be illegal. I think it falls within "Buying Collaborations" See Page 16 of the DOJ document.And, as I indicated in my prior post, it doesn't matter what the intent was. What matters is whether the collaborators have market power and whether the collaboration harms competition. Here is how Apple could avoid an anti-trust violation:If I were Apple, I would...
I just have to laugh at the statement "the problem with the current patent system is caused by the fact that innovation is, most of the time, just an improvement of existing technology." Well of course it is. I'll go one step further and say that innovation IS ALWAYS an improvement of existing technology. I'll bet you any amount of money you can collateralize that you can't give me an example of an innovation since 1776 that isn't just an improvement of existing...
Interesting. You suggest that it would be illegal for a consortium to buy the patents to put Google out of business. What's your rationale? Do you think it violates anti-trust laws? I'm not an expert on anti-trust, but I'm not aware of any case law on point. It raises a question as to whether the act of buying patents in concert violates anti-trust laws. Certainly there is no problem for the consortium to enforce the patents once they have them. Patent rights give...
New Posts  All Forums: