You can't just pick who you defend your product against--you have to defend it against everyone--and you can't just wait until it looks profitable. This should go nowhere.
In the case of patents, you can. And a lot of companies do.
This is very different from trademark law, where failure to defend it can result in loss of trademark. (This, for instance, is why the word "aspirin" is no longer a trademark of the Bayer corporate, and why "Jello" is always called "Jello brand" on the packaging.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wtfk
Besides, intellectual property--and specifically patents--are the Devil's business.
I wouldn't quite go that far. Someone who has a truly novel invention should be given exclusive rights to profit from his invention for a limited amount of time. This encourages people to invent new things.
It is when the inventions are obvious or trivial, or when the time frames are too large, that the system ends up suppressing innovation and becomes "the devil's business". Unfortunately, in the case of software, the patent office is either unable or unwilling to determine when patent applications are obvious, and ends up granting patents for things that should never have been given protection.
And a 17-year patent-lifespan is insane for an industry that moves as quickly as the computer industry.
Hmmm. I wonder why they aren't suing Real Networks?
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. Assuming you're not, they wouldn't win a suit against Real because Real was already doing the stuff in the patent before they filed the patent. It's called prior art.
Just because a patent is awarded doesn't mean it can be enforced. If there's enough prior art around, an awarded patent can still be worthless.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. Assuming you're not, they wouldn't win a suit against Real because Real was already doing the stuff in the patent before they filed the patent. It's called prior art.
Just because a patent is awarded doesn't mean it can be enforced. If there's enough prior art around, an awarded patent can still be worthless.
In some cases, prior art can even be sufficient to overturn a patent, although it usually requires a costly lawsuit to make that happen.
It's my understanding that someone filing for a patent is supposed to research any prior art, document it with the application, and explain what part of the patented invention is different. The only part of the patented invention that should be protected is the part that is actually new.
In this particular case, I can't imagine there being very much new content. People were downloading digital media from the internet since before there was a Web - I downloaded GIF images and AU audio clips from FTP sites (using Archie as a search engine) back in the late 80's. Files were also exchanged using newsgroups and using special-purpose programs. People started downloading these things from web sites when the first web servers went on line.
Web-based shopping and DRM came a few years later, but those were also both well established long before 2001.
As far as I'm concerned (and hopefully, the courts will concur), putting all of these pre-existing technologies together may result in something new, but that something is also obvious, which should disqualify it from patent protection.
Why is this company wasting it's time? No one is going to roll over and give them undeserved money, this just seems like a stupid waste of time. Why don't these people just go to a bar and asked to be punched in the face, it'd be a lot faster.
Some lady copyrighted BINGO in Japan. Just a little old English teacher who had her own bookstore. Nothing serious; just about every textbook sold in her store (by major publishers) contained a bingo game in it. Moral of the story: if someone really wanted to, they could probably patent the breathing process and sue every human on the planet.
The legal system is the source of the problem here, as is the fact that Intertainment is bust; they waited for...
Some lady copyrighted BINGO in Japan. Just a little old English teacher who had her own bookstore. Nothing serious; just about every textbook sold in her store (by major publishers) contained a bingo game in it. Moral of the story: if someone really wanted to, they could probably patent the breathing process and sue every human on the planet.
The moral of your story is that someone can copyright just about anything. Your story doesn't actually have anything to do with patents, though it is true that many things that should not be patented are being patented. I think your example is probably a trademark. They are three different regimes of exclusive "ownership" of ideas.
How does Intertainer think they are going to prevail in a patent case when their patent was filed 5 years after Apples shiny old patent was awarded?
The Apple legal sharks are in the water ready for a counter-suit feeding frenzy. And folks wondered a couple months ago - Why would Apple do something like buy a dumb little patent like that?
It's all in the ridiculously early date for a media downloading related patent baby. Apple doesn't have to sue other folks for the acquisition to be worthwhile, it's lawsuit kryptonite!
Six weeks from now:
Apple lawyer: 'Thank you for this settlement covering our legal costs...'
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. Assuming you're not, they wouldn't win a suit against Real because Real was already doing the stuff in the patent before they filed the patent. It's called prior art.
Just because a patent is awarded doesn't mean it can be enforced. If there's enough prior art around, an awarded patent can still be worthless.
You can always safely assume that I'm being sarcastic.
Comments
You can't just pick who you defend your product against--you have to defend it against everyone--and you can't just wait until it looks profitable. This should go nowhere.
In the case of patents, you can. And a lot of companies do.
This is very different from trademark law, where failure to defend it can result in loss of trademark. (This, for instance, is why the word "aspirin" is no longer a trademark of the Bayer corporate, and why "Jello" is always called "Jello brand" on the packaging.)
Besides, intellectual property--and specifically patents--are the Devil's business.
I wouldn't quite go that far. Someone who has a truly novel invention should be given exclusive rights to profit from his invention for a limited amount of time. This encourages people to invent new things.
It is when the inventions are obvious or trivial, or when the time frames are too large, that the system ends up suppressing innovation and becomes "the devil's business". Unfortunately, in the case of software, the patent office is either unable or unwilling to determine when patent applications are obvious, and ends up granting patents for things that should never have been given protection.
And a 17-year patent-lifespan is insane for an industry that moves as quickly as the computer industry.
Hmmm. I wonder why they aren't suing Real Networks?
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. Assuming you're not, they wouldn't win a suit against Real because Real was already doing the stuff in the patent before they filed the patent. It's called prior art.
Just because a patent is awarded doesn't mean it can be enforced. If there's enough prior art around, an awarded patent can still be worthless.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. Assuming you're not, they wouldn't win a suit against Real because Real was already doing the stuff in the patent before they filed the patent. It's called prior art.
Just because a patent is awarded doesn't mean it can be enforced. If there's enough prior art around, an awarded patent can still be worthless.
In some cases, prior art can even be sufficient to overturn a patent, although it usually requires a costly lawsuit to make that happen.
It's my understanding that someone filing for a patent is supposed to research any prior art, document it with the application, and explain what part of the patented invention is different. The only part of the patented invention that should be protected is the part that is actually new.
In this particular case, I can't imagine there being very much new content. People were downloading digital media from the internet since before there was a Web - I downloaded GIF images and AU audio clips from FTP sites (using Archie as a search engine) back in the late 80's. Files were also exchanged using newsgroups and using special-purpose programs. People started downloading these things from web sites when the first web servers went on line.
Web-based shopping and DRM came a few years later, but those were also both well established long before 2001.
As far as I'm concerned (and hopefully, the courts will concur), putting all of these pre-existing technologies together may result in something new, but that something is also obvious, which should disqualify it from patent protection.
The legal system is the source of the problem here, as is the fact that Intertainment is bust; they waited for...
Some lady copyrighted BINGO in Japan. Just a little old English teacher who had her own bookstore. Nothing serious; just about every textbook sold in her store (by major publishers) contained a bingo game in it. Moral of the story: if someone really wanted to, they could probably patent the breathing process and sue every human on the planet.
The moral of your story is that someone can copyright just about anything. Your story doesn't actually have anything to do with patents, though it is true that many things that should not be patented are being patented. I think your example is probably a trademark. They are three different regimes of exclusive "ownership" of ideas.
How does Intertainer think they are going to prevail in a patent case when their patent was filed 5 years after Apples shiny old patent was awarded?
The Apple legal sharks are in the water ready for a counter-suit feeding frenzy. And folks wondered a couple months ago - Why would Apple do something like buy a dumb little patent like that?
It's all in the ridiculously early date for a media downloading related patent baby. Apple doesn't have to sue other folks for the acquisition to be worthwhile, it's lawsuit kryptonite!
Six weeks from now:
Apple lawyer: 'Thank you for this settlement covering our legal costs...'
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. Assuming you're not, they wouldn't win a suit against Real because Real was already doing the stuff in the patent before they filed the patent. It's called prior art.
Just because a patent is awarded doesn't mean it can be enforced. If there's enough prior art around, an awarded patent can still be worthless.
You can always safely assume that I'm being sarcastic.