or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ash471

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...
Why does everyone imply that using patents as a defense is somehow more noble than using them as an offense. What is wrong with using patents as offense? The right to exclude is the right of a patent. Any patent holder should use it in their best interest. A lot of big companies don't sue on their patents because they don't want to get sued. If that is in their best interest then great. However, there is nothing wrong with enforcing a patent. That's why we have...
Since the dawn of the patent system, the rip off artists like Google have whined and complained that the patent system hinders innovation. That's a bunch of bull. Companies like Google and RIM have been very successful at breaking down the patent system by saying we shouldn't allow non-practicing entities to enforce their patents. That argument doesn't work with Apple, Microsoft, and Nokia. So now all Google can say is, "patents hinder innovation". Google has...
The way patents work is that the market determines which patents are valuable. A good inventor will rush to be first where he sees value. There is nothing wrong with this. That is how the system is suppose to work. The race actually creates huge wealth. In this process, Apple will undoubtedly infringe some patents. Is it really that unreasonable to think that Apple shouldn't have to make a reasonable payout to dome of it co-collaborators. Think of the patent system...
One Fine Line,I can understand your confusion. The problem is that the determination of obviousness is a really hard thing to do. It takes about $5,000-$10,000 worth of work for a patent attorney and a patent examiner to do a quick and dirty job at determining patentability. In court, the parties will spend millions. I find it highly unlikely that a blogger on Slashdot would have any clue whether a claim was obvious or not. It wouldn't surprise me if the guy saying...
LOL. Ya, I was little harsh on AppleLover2. And yes, your joke was funny. I actually have pretty thick skin. AppleLover2's joke didn't bother me...I was just in the mood to take him to the tool shed. I was up all night (literally) working on an Office Action response to the patent office and the Examiner's obviousness rejection was driving me nuts. I was trying to articulate why one of skill in the art wouldn't use the N-oxide of compound as an intermediate in a...
This is exactly my point. Since Apple has a sales team and manufacturing facility, we deem them worthy of being able to enforce a patent. It seems ridiculous to me that we would draw a distinction between practicing inventors and non-practicing inventors. The reality is inventing doesn't have anything to do with selling. The only reason we do it is because the software patent phobes use it as a tactic to inhibit the patent system.
What a dumb shit. Is that the most intelligent thing you can say? You're the kind of person that can only bitch about a lawyer because if you ever had to compete intellectually with a lawyer you would get your ass kicked. There are plenty of people on this site that disagree with me and have something intelligent to say. You're comment is a disgrace. Why don't you go hang out in a yahoo blog with other thoughtless 15 year olds.
New Posts  All Forums: