When they file, is it just drawings, or do they actually have to produce a working model??
If all you have to do is think of something and draw a picture, I could make a living coming up with stuff no one is using right now and patent it to ensure my family is taking care of when someone finally gets around to actually creating something that works.
It only really applies to what Apple is doing in the most tangential fashion, it was never implemented, and hasn't been defended even though many many devices have used this technique before the iPhone.
I don?t understand this argument. Do you mean licensing their IP when you say negotiations? If they are actively licensing their product to these companies then how can they be suing them for patent violations?
I mean negotiations to license the IP. Do you think that they would sue without first trying to make a reasonable deal?
I presume they are small. I know for a fact that Apple is a giant who can crush other companies with teams of lawyers on a whim.
I assume that they didn't try a dangerous, expensive, speculative method (litigation) before trying a near-costless and potentially profitable method (a deal).
I could be wrong. But the alternative makes little sense, unless there are many, many facts left out of the reporting.
As will no doubt be mentioned by dozens of others, this is something whose specific implementation should have been patentable, but the simple concept of using motion for control should not have been
I suggest AI refrain from publishing these lawsuit stories for the following reasons:
1) There are so damned many of them.
2) We rarely get a followup, which gives the impression that Apple is being buried under an ever-growing pile of lawsuits
3) They are very similar in quality and scope, only the specific challenged technology changes
I suggest we see them only if:
1) The suit is dropped, settled, won or lost. Then tell us about it so we get both ends of the story at once.
2) The suit is particularly novel or important--use editorial restraint.
To keep posting every one makes them become background noise. I tune it out. Also, we all get weary of reading the same four or five predictable categories of response: lawyers suck, Texas sucks, patent law sucks, "I am going to patent breathing," etc. Or maybe save them up for a year end summary: "Apple's 2010 Lawsuits in Review." Anything but this death by a thousand cuts journalism.
Excellent points. As I mentioned yesterday (commenting on another story about a patent suit against Apple), a vast majority of these -- over 75% -- go nowhere.
I'd rather hear about the ones that succeed for the plaintiffs, why/how, and then see how the appeals process works.
A similar argument applies to the seemingly endless stories about antitrust complaints and investigations in the tech sector.
I mean negotiations to license the IP. Do you think that they would sue without first trying to make a reasonable deal?
I presume they are small. I know for a fact that Apple is a giant who can crush other companies with teams of lawyers on a whim.
I assume that they didn't try a dangerous, expensive, speculative method (litigation) before trying a near-costless and potentially profitable method (a deal).
I could be wrong. But the alternative makes little sense, unless there are many, many facts left out of the reporting.
Okay, I get what you're saying.
1) Does Triton think it has a patent that could warrant licensing from these companies or do they think there only recourse for making a profit is from sueing in Marshall.
2) If they did seek licensing fees why didn't they get them from either company? Did they ask for too much thus making a lawsuit and potential payout a more lucrative solution, did these cpmpanies feel Triton's patents wouldn't hold up in court, or some other reason?
Here's a possible interesting item of interest concerning patent laws in the US: By law, any member of the public can demand that the Patent and Trademark Office reexamine an issued patent, and the PTO is (usually) bound to do so.
If there are knowledgeable folks on technologies such as these in forums such as AI, it is time to take a stand, and confront this type of junk head-on.
I don't think a patent should be accepted unless the applicant can demonstrate a working prototype.
Crazy.
That would invalidate patents based not upon any existing criteria, but instead, based in large part on the wealth of the inventor. It would be counterproductive.
Here's some basic patent stuff from Wikipedia that covers the current enablement criteria, which seems to be the aspect of patent law that you seek to overturn:
The patent law in the United States further requires, among other things, that the patent specification "contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same." 35 U.S.C. 112(1). The requirement "to enable" a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention is colloquially referred to as the "enablement" requirement. A patent that does not meet the enablement requirement may be declared invalid by a court.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that, if a patent holder seriously delays in bringing a lawsuit, the court can bar past damages. Two things are perhaps worthy of note here: one, as someone pointed out above, these guys waited until a month before patent expiry (and 239 months into the patent) to file a lawsuit; two, Wii has been around for a number of years now, so the question is why Triton filed nothing before this.
It took them almost 5 years to figure out that the Wii was using their patent, yet only a couple months for the iPhone 4? Or did Nintendo recently change the way the remote works, putting it in "violation" of the patent?
Likely none of your potential explanations are accurate.
I'm no patent attorney, but another absurd lawsuit, in my opinion. The IDEA of including multiple accelerometers and angular rate sensors for detecting position and motion should not be patentable.
The idea is not patentable. And at any rate, none of their claims were for that idea.
If all you have to do is think of something and draw a picture, I could make a living coming up with stuff no one is using right now and patent it to ensure my family is taking care of when someone finally gets around to actually creating something that works.
Wow. Maybe that is why there are more requirements than "think of something and draw a picture".
As will no doubt be mentioned by dozens of others, this is something whose specific implementation should have been patentable, but the simple concept of using motion for control should not have been
I'm not sure that they claim a patent on "the simple concept of using motion for control".
Which of their claims says that they do?
I think you may be mistaken about the basis of their patent.
1) Does Triton think it has a patent that could warrant licensing from these companies or do they think there only recourse for making a profit is from sueing in Marshall.
2) If they did seek licensing fees why didn't they get them from either company? Did they ask for too much thus making a lawsuit and potential payout a more lucrative solution, did these cpmpanies feel Triton's patents wouldn't hold up in court, or some other reason?
Your guesses are as good as mine.
But it is very common for a huge merciless company to string along a tiny one who is trying to sell them something. Another poster said that Triton is running out of time.
Comments
It states in the filig that this Triton Tech is an LLC based in Marshall, Texas. It sounds to me like a shell company for patent trolling.
I thought they were based in Houston, actually.
If all you have to do is think of something and draw a picture, I could make a living coming up with stuff no one is using right now and patent it to ensure my family is taking care of when someone finally gets around to actually creating something that works.
Seems like weak sauce to me.
It only really applies to what Apple is doing in the most tangential fashion, it was never implemented, and hasn't been defended even though many many devices have used this technique before the iPhone.
Are the second and third factors even relevant?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
OMG...I'm all alone!!!!
At least this company filing in Marshall Texas is from Texas.
Solipsism...
Not sure how I rate being in your signature, but I totally agree with your statement.
I don?t understand this argument. Do you mean licensing their IP when you say negotiations? If they are actively licensing their product to these companies then how can they be suing them for patent violations?
I mean negotiations to license the IP. Do you think that they would sue without first trying to make a reasonable deal?
I presume they are small. I know for a fact that Apple is a giant who can crush other companies with teams of lawyers on a whim.
I assume that they didn't try a dangerous, expensive, speculative method (litigation) before trying a near-costless and potentially profitable method (a deal).
I could be wrong. But the alternative makes little sense, unless there are many, many facts left out of the reporting.
I suggest AI refrain from publishing these lawsuit stories for the following reasons:
1) There are so damned many of them.
2) We rarely get a followup, which gives the impression that Apple is being buried under an ever-growing pile of lawsuits
3) They are very similar in quality and scope, only the specific challenged technology changes
I suggest we see them only if:
1) The suit is dropped, settled, won or lost. Then tell us about it so we get both ends of the story at once.
2) The suit is particularly novel or important--use editorial restraint.
To keep posting every one makes them become background noise. I tune it out. Also, we all get weary of reading the same four or five predictable categories of response: lawyers suck, Texas sucks, patent law sucks, "I am going to patent breathing," etc. Or maybe save them up for a year end summary: "Apple's 2010 Lawsuits in Review." Anything but this death by a thousand cuts journalism.
Excellent points. As I mentioned yesterday (commenting on another story about a patent suit against Apple), a vast majority of these -- over 75% -- go nowhere.
I'd rather hear about the ones that succeed for the plaintiffs, why/how, and then see how the appeals process works.
A similar argument applies to the seemingly endless stories about antitrust complaints and investigations in the tech sector.
I mean negotiations to license the IP. Do you think that they would sue without first trying to make a reasonable deal?
I presume they are small. I know for a fact that Apple is a giant who can crush other companies with teams of lawyers on a whim.
I assume that they didn't try a dangerous, expensive, speculative method (litigation) before trying a near-costless and potentially profitable method (a deal).
I could be wrong. But the alternative makes little sense, unless there are many, many facts left out of the reporting.
Okay, I get what you're saying.
1) Does Triton think it has a patent that could warrant licensing from these companies or do they think there only recourse for making a profit is from sueing in Marshall.
2) If they did seek licensing fees why didn't they get them from either company? Did they ask for too much thus making a lawsuit and potential payout a more lucrative solution, did these cpmpanies feel Triton's patents wouldn't hold up in court, or some other reason?
If there are knowledgeable folks on technologies such as these in forums such as AI, it is time to take a stand, and confront this type of junk head-on.
See you all in court.
I don't think a patent should be accepted unless the applicant can demonstrate a working prototype.
Crazy.
That would invalidate patents based not upon any existing criteria, but instead, based in large part on the wealth of the inventor. It would be counterproductive.
Here's some basic patent stuff from Wikipedia that covers the current enablement criteria, which seems to be the aspect of patent law that you seek to overturn:
The patent law in the United States further requires, among other things, that the patent specification "contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same." 35 U.S.C. 112(1). The requirement "to enable" a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention is colloquially referred to as the "enablement" requirement. A patent that does not meet the enablement requirement may be declared invalid by a court.
Are the second and third factors even relevant?
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that, if a patent holder seriously delays in bringing a lawsuit, the court can bar past damages. Two things are perhaps worthy of note here: one, as someone pointed out above, these guys waited until a month before patent expiry (and 239 months into the patent) to file a lawsuit; two, Wii has been around for a number of years now, so the question is why Triton filed nothing before this.
It took them almost 5 years to figure out that the Wii was using their patent, yet only a couple months for the iPhone 4? Or did Nintendo recently change the way the remote works, putting it in "violation" of the patent?
Likely none of your potential explanations are accurate.
I'm no patent attorney, but another absurd lawsuit, in my opinion. The IDEA of including multiple accelerometers and angular rate sensors for detecting position and motion should not be patentable.
The idea is not patentable. And at any rate, none of their claims were for that idea.
If all you have to do is think of something and draw a picture, I could make a living coming up with stuff no one is using right now and patent it to ensure my family is taking care of when someone finally gets around to actually creating something that works.
Wow. Maybe that is why there are more requirements than "think of something and draw a picture".
You can rest easy now.
As will no doubt be mentioned by dozens of others, this is something whose specific implementation should have been patentable, but the simple concept of using motion for control should not have been
I'm not sure that they claim a patent on "the simple concept of using motion for control".
Which of their claims says that they do?
I think you may be mistaken about the basis of their patent.
Okay, I get what you're saying.
1) Does Triton think it has a patent that could warrant licensing from these companies or do they think there only recourse for making a profit is from sueing in Marshall.
2) If they did seek licensing fees why didn't they get them from either company? Did they ask for too much thus making a lawsuit and potential payout a more lucrative solution, did these cpmpanies feel Triton's patents wouldn't hold up in court, or some other reason?
Your guesses are as good as mine.
But it is very common for a huge merciless company to string along a tiny one who is trying to sell them something. Another poster said that Triton is running out of time.
Your guesses are as good as mine.
Likely none of your potential explanations are accurate.
Then what would be an accurate explanation?