Google didn't request a re-examine on claim 5. Read the damned document! Right up there at the top 'Re-examination of claims 1-4, 6-23 of <blah> has been requested'. And it's quite often that initial office actions get reversed, which is actually to Oracle's benefit because almost all of their claims examined so far have been thrown out.
The number of claims infringed may end up being significant from the perspective of damages. A single claim may not mean they're screwed, though they'd obviously prefer none.
They didn't request it, because they admit the validity.
No, as I said, it's very rare for it to be reversed.
You are a great example of what I'm trying to fight here. No criminal proceedings would follow because there are no grounds for criminal proceedings in patent infringement cases, wilful or otherwise.
Really? What clairvoyance you have!
Quote:
Nope, you still need to take that civics course.
Why are you assuming that it will start and end with a patent dispute? Surely you are familiar with the concept of follow on litigation?
Especially if this becomes the start of a much-deserved trail of habitual disregard for intellectual property law - it can cross over into the criminal.
Infringement is theft because it's wrong? Wow, profound.
I was going to respond to that but decided against it. I think he is set in his thinking and no amount or reasoning will change his mind so why bother.
The best you can do is try to show people what "stealing" means and what "patent infringement" and "copyright violations" means and converse with those who want to see the distinction and atleast use proper words in proper context.
They didn't request it, because they admit the validity.
No, as I said, it's very rare for it to be reversed.
Or they didn't request it because it's one claim that they're confident that they don't infringe. If all these first office actions stand then this is actually going very badly for Oracle - their longest lived Java patent was the one that was completely invalidated.
I think most people here will agree that patent infringement and copyright violations are not "stealing".
Google is apple's competitor and hence people here will be more than happy to throw any dirt at them and "stealing" is a popular word among apple fans and thats the one that is currently in use against them at the moment and what you are trying to say is simply in the way and thats why these guys play dumb and nobody comes to your aid.
These people you are arguing with know the distinctions you are trying to make, they simply play dumb for reasons that can be explained with that popular phrase "dont let facts get in the way of a good story".
You have very compelling arguments and i am sure a lot of people here supports your view. They just dont help you out for reasons i mention above, its in a way of a good dirt throwing.
I specifically liked the land example, pretty creative.
You are a great example of what I'm trying to fight here. No criminal proceedings would follow because there are no grounds for criminal proceedings in patent infringement cases, wilful or otherwise.
Nope, you still need to take that civics course.
@cloudgazer you seem to feel that you, and you only, understand all the legal and patent issues involved -- better than the lawyers, USPTO professionals, judges, public record, bloggers with bona fides, legal training, principals involved -- and anyone with the ability to read, reason and differentiate.
In truth, you have become your sig.
BTW, when do you find time for your, obviously vast, legal practice?
No larry here, you can check my IP address against that of larry if you dont believe these are my first posts here. I would like you to notice that all i am saying is supporting a member here with more than 1000 posts.
As the article say "stealing" is a criminal act. Patent infringement and copyright violations are not criminal acts and hence are not stealing.
You may say you do not care about the distinction and you view these violations are "stealing" but you should know that once you do that. Then you will logically start to argue for or against these violations/infringements as if the issue is a criminal matter and no good can come from that.
It is a very dangerous thing to knowingly use words in wrong context because you do not care about the context. Once you pass the stage where you made the decision of not caring,all your arguments will logically follow a path that isnt valid from that point forward.
OK, i have said my piece and i am going back to lurking.
Or they didn't request it because it's one claim that they're confident that they don't infringe. If all these first office actions stand then this is actually going very badly for Oracle - their longest lived Java patent was the one that was completely invalidated.
That makes no sense. They've already admitted that they're willing to pay Oracle to get this over with. They admitted in internal documents that they infringe. What you're saying is that they lay no claim to article 5.
No larry here, you can check my IP address against that of larry if you dont believe these are my first posts here. I would like you to notice that all i am saying is supporting a member here with more than 1000 posts.
As the article say "stealing" is a criminal act. Patent infringement and copyright violations are not criminal acts and hence are not stealing.
You may say you do not care about the distinction and you view these violations are "stealing" but you should know that once you do that. Then you will logically start to argue for or against these violations/infringements as if the issue is a criminal matter and no good can come from that.
It is a very dangerous thing to knowingly use words in wrong context because you do not care about the context. Once you pass the stage where you made the decision of not caring,all your arguments will logically follow a path that isnt valid from that point forward.
OK, i have said my piece and i am going back to lurking.
You should go to a real dictionary site. wiki's definitions can be, shall we say, odd?
The whole concept of "infringement as theft" is one popularised by big media who are seeking to be victims in whatever forum they can.
It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. You may deprive them of the revenue from that thing, but that is different. You might call that 'infringement of IP'.
I don't think anyone denies IP infringement is using something which is not yours to use, but it shouldn't be confused with theft. You are certainly interfering with rights which the IP owner is free to give and control by dint of copyright, patent and design statute, but's its not theft.
Comments
Infringement is theft. It might not land you "in the pokey" but it's still wrong.
Infringement is theft because it's wrong? Wow, profound.
This argument is complete nonsense. There is no aspect of fair use that allows you to copy entire works for commercial purposes.
And I see cloudgazer has gone off on another fantasy based Google apology based on the theory that if an act isn't criminal it isn't immoral. Yeesh.
And I see that you are playing mini-me to melgross again. Putting words into people's mouths that they never said and making zero sense. Yeesh.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality
An example of what we're talking about lies in this statement Merriam-Websters uses as an example:
The decision may be legally justified, but I question its morality.
This argument is complete nonsense. There is no aspect of fair use that allows you to copy entire works for commercial purposes.
And I see cloudgazer has gone off on another fantasy based Google apology based on the theory that if an act isn't criminal it isn't immoral. Yeesh.
+++
I do not understand why anyone even responds such nonsense.
Google didn't request a re-examine on claim 5. Read the damned document! Right up there at the top 'Re-examination of claims 1-4, 6-23 of <blah> has been requested'. And it's quite often that initial office actions get reversed, which is actually to Oracle's benefit because almost all of their claims examined so far have been thrown out.
The number of claims infringed may end up being significant from the perspective of damages. A single claim may not mean they're screwed, though they'd obviously prefer none.
They didn't request it, because they admit the validity.
No, as I said, it's very rare for it to be reversed.
You are a great example of what I'm trying to fight here. No criminal proceedings would follow because there are no grounds for criminal proceedings in patent infringement cases, wilful or otherwise.
Really? What clairvoyance you have!
Nope, you still need to take that civics course.
Why are you assuming that it will start and end with a patent dispute? Surely you are familiar with the concept of follow on litigation?
Especially if this becomes the start of a much-deserved trail of habitual disregard for intellectual property law - it can cross over into the criminal.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50585813/4/Market-Economy
Page 171...
So future litigation (which I do acknowledge is probably unlikely) wouldn't be related to patents - but I wouldn't just dismiss it out of hand either.
Unless you have that crystal ball working. If that's the case I'll split the lottery with you!
+++
I do not understand why anyone even responds such nonsense.
Well I'm done with it - despite saying I was done with it a few posts back
Time to get some dinner.
And then some popcorn for the coming weeks
Infringement is theft because it's wrong? Wow, profound.
I was going to respond to that but decided against it. I think he is set in his thinking and no amount or reasoning will change his mind so why bother.
The best you can do is try to show people what "stealing" means and what "patent infringement" and "copyright violations" means and converse with those who want to see the distinction and atleast use proper words in proper context.
How about a view from a more neutral source. It might ... change ... your opinions as to what's going on, who's at fault, and who needs to worry.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...0-CV-03561-WHA
They didn't request it, because they admit the validity.
No, as I said, it's very rare for it to be reversed.
Or they didn't request it because it's one claim that they're confident that they don't infringe. If all these first office actions stand then this is actually going very badly for Oracle - their longest lived Java patent was the one that was completely invalidated.
Long time lurker, first time poster.
I think most people here will agree that patent infringement and copyright violations are not "stealing".
Google is apple's competitor and hence people here will be more than happy to throw any dirt at them and "stealing" is a popular word among apple fans and thats the one that is currently in use against them at the moment and what you are trying to say is simply in the way and thats why these guys play dumb and nobody comes to your aid.
These people you are arguing with know the distinctions you are trying to make, they simply play dumb for reasons that can be explained with that popular phrase "dont let facts get in the way of a good story".
You have very compelling arguments and i am sure a lot of people here supports your view. They just dont help you out for reasons i mention above, its in a way of a good dirt throwing.
I specifically liked the land example, pretty creative.
Larry... Is that you?
Congrats on a classic 1st post!
You guys are all very funny.
How about a view from a more neutral source. It might ... change ... your opinions as to what's going on, who's at fault, and who needs to worry.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...0-CV-03561-WHA
Groklaw is by no mean neutral.
Groklaw is by no mean neutral.
Neutral on the Internet means "I agree with this."
You are a great example of what I'm trying to fight here. No criminal proceedings would follow because there are no grounds for criminal proceedings in patent infringement cases, wilful or otherwise.
Nope, you still need to take that civics course.
@cloudgazer you seem to feel that you, and you only, understand all the legal and patent issues involved -- better than the lawyers, USPTO professionals, judges, public record, bloggers with bona fides, legal training, principals involved -- and anyone with the ability to read, reason and differentiate.
In truth, you have become your sig.
BTW, when do you find time for your, obviously vast, legal practice?
/sarcasm
Larry... Is that you?
Congrats on a classic 1st post!
No larry here, you can check my IP address against that of larry if you dont believe these are my first posts here. I would like you to notice that all i am saying is supporting a member here with more than 1000 posts.
Wikipedia has an article of "stealing" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
This other wikipedia entry relates "stealing" with "theft". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_%28disambiguation%29
As the article say "stealing" is a criminal act. Patent infringement and copyright violations are not criminal acts and hence are not stealing.
You may say you do not care about the distinction and you view these violations are "stealing" but you should know that once you do that. Then you will logically start to argue for or against these violations/infringements as if the issue is a criminal matter and no good can come from that.
It is a very dangerous thing to knowingly use words in wrong context because you do not care about the context. Once you pass the stage where you made the decision of not caring,all your arguments will logically follow a path that isnt valid from that point forward.
OK, i have said my piece and i am going back to lurking.
Or they didn't request it because it's one claim that they're confident that they don't infringe. If all these first office actions stand then this is actually going very badly for Oracle - their longest lived Java patent was the one that was completely invalidated.
That makes no sense. They've already admitted that they're willing to pay Oracle to get this over with. They admitted in internal documents that they infringe. What you're saying is that they lay no claim to article 5.
Neutral on the Internet means "I agree with this."
Yeah, pretty much.
No larry here, you can check my IP address against that of larry if you dont believe these are my first posts here. I would like you to notice that all i am saying is supporting a member here with more than 1000 posts.
Wikipedia has an article of "stealing" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
This other wikipedia entry relates "stealing" with "theft". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_%28disambiguation%29
As the article say "stealing" is a criminal act. Patent infringement and copyright violations are not criminal acts and hence are not stealing.
You may say you do not care about the distinction and you view these violations are "stealing" but you should know that once you do that. Then you will logically start to argue for or against these violations/infringements as if the issue is a criminal matter and no good can come from that.
It is a very dangerous thing to knowingly use words in wrong context because you do not care about the context. Once you pass the stage where you made the decision of not caring,all your arguments will logically follow a path that isnt valid from that point forward.
OK, i have said my piece and i am going back to lurking.
You should go to a real dictionary site. wiki's definitions can be, shall we say, odd?
Infringement is theft.
The whole concept of "infringement as theft" is one popularised by big media who are seeking to be victims in whatever forum they can.
It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. You may deprive them of the revenue from that thing, but that is different. You might call that 'infringement of IP'.
I don't think anyone denies IP infringement is using something which is not yours to use, but it shouldn't be confused with theft. You are certainly interfering with rights which the IP owner is free to give and control by dint of copyright, patent and design statute, but's its not theft.