You can't patent an idea... only a specific implementation of that idea.
Besides, sounds like patent squatting... the "exclusive licensee" sounds like a holding company to me. I can't find any official web site for them, and the only references to them outside this story is that GITH appears on penny-stock spam.
On top of that, the patent is 13 years old, coming up on expiration...does this then qualify as a submarine patent?
Indeed. One possible reform would be to establish severe civil and criminal penalties for applying for any patent where prior art is known to or should reasonably have been known to the applicant.
Frivolous civil lawsuits are very common... and they need to be stopped. [?] It would save tax payers money and keep lawyers honest.
And thus justice would completely fall off the map. I happen to be a law student, and happen to know from experience and hearsay that a great number of cases are hard to win despite defending the greater part of the truth. Justice would dictate that you win. But there's a good chance you might not.
The system you are suggesting would lead to justice disappearing, because cases where you will not necessarily win would not be taken on by lawyers. Unless you're a big corporation or a rich person who guarantees the lawyer that he or she will be paid no matter what, despite the law.
Wouldn't the world be great where Lawyears could ONLY charge money if they win? How many frivilous lawsuits would never be started in the first place if that was the case?.
In 1970, Frank Herbert published a novel called "Whipping Star". In it, we are introduced to an alien race (the Gowachin) with a legal system where the losing lawyer AND his client are immediately killed after the verdict goes against them. Consequently, there are very few frivolous lawsuits in the Gowachin legal courts.
Wouldn't the world be great where Lawyears could ONLY charge money if they win? How many frivilous lawsuits would never be started in the first place if that was the case?
Actually that is how it usually works. They work on contingency. What I would prefer is that if the plaintiff loses, they pay the attorney fees of the defendant.
Actually that is how it usually works. They work on contingency. What I would prefer is that if the plaintiff loses, they pay the attorney fees of the defendant.
The two firms repeat the accusations, in whole or in part, against 11 other PC makers, including Acer, Alienware, American Future Technology, Asus, Dell, Fujitsu, Gateway, HP, Lenovo
Why are they suing hardware manufacturers if this is a software/OS interaction patent. You might as well sue the toaster manufacturer because someone stole your bread recipe.
In 1970, Frank Herbert published a novel called "Whipping Star". In it, we are introduced to an alien race (the Gowachin) with a legal system where the losing lawyer AND his client are immediately killed after the verdict goes against them. Consequently, there are very few frivolous lawsuits in the Gowachin legal courts.
Again, Frank Herbert was ahead of his time!
I really liked that book. If I remember correctly, the judge, prosecutor and even the spectators could all or individually be found guilty and executed on the spot. I keep coming back to this book whenever the legal system shows us how much of an ass it can be.
But the concept of each program in a multitasking microcomputer running in its own distinct memory space, with each program's memory space invisible and untouchable by each other program, is an idea that dates back at least as far as the design of the i386 microprocessor in 1986. Certainly it was common practise in minicomputers and mainframes even before that.
That was one of the key features of the VAX-11 series that distinguished it from its predecessor, the PDP-11.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison
For any operating system that makes use of memory protection in an i386-derived processor, it doesn't matter how you shuffle the cards, it all distills back to the same mechanism.
I don't think this patents is about protected memory. The summary presented here sounds more like restricting which OS-level APIs can be executed on a per-app basis. It sounds a lot like Java's sandboxing, parental controls and filtering network proxies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
What I would prefer is that if the plaintiff loses, they pay the attorney fees of the defendant.
While I agree that it would greatly cut down on frivolous suits, it can also end up stifling perfectly reasonable suits. If you have a completely legitimate suit against a corporation, they could throw a million dollars worth of lawyers at you and then make you pay for them all when you lose because your single lawyer isn't as good as the 50-person team he went up against.
Another patent troll company!. They will loose big time. Lots of "prior art" can be proven way before 1992. It takes one big company like MS to defeat this, if they wake up that giant.
Comments
You can't patent an idea... only a specific implementation of that idea.
Besides, sounds like patent squatting... the "exclusive licensee" sounds like a holding company to me. I can't find any official web site for them, and the only references to them outside this story is that GITH appears on penny-stock spam.
On top of that, the patent is 13 years old, coming up on expiration...does this then qualify as a submarine patent?
The US Patent System is clearly broken.
Indeed. One possible reform would be to establish severe civil and criminal penalties for applying for any patent where prior art is known to or should reasonably have been known to the applicant.
Frivolous civil lawsuits are very common... and they need to be stopped. [?] It would save tax payers money and keep lawyers honest.
And thus justice would completely fall off the map. I happen to be a law student, and happen to know from experience and hearsay that a great number of cases are hard to win despite defending the greater part of the truth. Justice would dictate that you win. But there's a good chance you might not.
The system you are suggesting would lead to justice disappearing, because cases where you will not necessarily win would not be taken on by lawyers. Unless you're a big corporation or a rich person who guarantees the lawyer that he or she will be paid no matter what, despite the law.
Wouldn't the world be great where Lawyears could ONLY charge money if they win? How many frivilous lawsuits would never be started in the first place if that was the case?.
In 1970, Frank Herbert published a novel called "Whipping Star". In it, we are introduced to an alien race (the Gowachin) with a legal system where the losing lawyer AND his client are immediately killed after the verdict goes against them. Consequently, there are very few frivolous lawsuits in the Gowachin legal courts.
Again, Frank Herbert was ahead of his time!
Wouldn't the world be great where Lawyears could ONLY charge money if they win? How many frivilous lawsuits would never be started in the first place if that was the case?
Actually that is how it usually works. They work on contingency. What I would prefer is that if the plaintiff loses, they pay the attorney fees of the defendant.
Wouldn't the world be great where Lawyears could ONLY charge money if they win? ...
Isn't that how contingency works in the US?
Actually that is how it usually works. They work on contingency. What I would prefer is that if the plaintiff loses, they pay the attorney fees of the defendant.
That could possibly work as well.
What do these people do, pick up a computing science textbook and try to patent all of the ideas therein which haven't been patented before?
As has been mentioned in other posts, permissions and access control are concepts which have been around since the dawn of computer technology.
What do these people do, pick up a computing science textbook and try to patent all of the ideas therein which haven't been patented before?
I'd like to know why the patent granting bodies allow vague concepts and don't reject applications with clear prior art.
Maybe the ones we read about are the few that slip through the cracks, but sometimes it looks like the crack is as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Someone should file a patent on the patenting process and put them all out of business.
Ha Ha.
People at Microsoft are slapping their heads and saying: D'Oh!
The two firms repeat the accusations, in whole or in part, against 11 other PC makers, including Acer, Alienware, American Future Technology, Asus, Dell, Fujitsu, Gateway, HP, Lenovo
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Why are they suing hardware manufacturers if this is a software/OS interaction patent. You might as well sue the toaster manufacturer because someone stole your bread recipe.
Someone should file a patent on the patenting process and put them all out of business.
Oh no... recursive patents! Opens up a new dimension in lawsuits.
In 1970, Frank Herbert published a novel called "Whipping Star". In it, we are introduced to an alien race (the Gowachin) with a legal system where the losing lawyer AND his client are immediately killed after the verdict goes against them. Consequently, there are very few frivolous lawsuits in the Gowachin legal courts.
Again, Frank Herbert was ahead of his time!
I really liked that book. If I remember correctly, the judge, prosecutor and even the spectators could all or individually be found guilty and executed on the spot. I keep coming back to this book whenever the legal system shows us how much of an ass it can be.
i'm gonna be so rich.
But the concept of each program in a multitasking microcomputer running in its own distinct memory space, with each program's memory space invisible and untouchable by each other program, is an idea that dates back at least as far as the design of the i386 microprocessor in 1986. Certainly it was common practise in minicomputers and mainframes even before that.
That was one of the key features of the VAX-11 series that distinguished it from its predecessor, the PDP-11.
For any operating system that makes use of memory protection in an i386-derived processor, it doesn't matter how you shuffle the cards, it all distills back to the same mechanism.
I don't think this patents is about protected memory. The summary presented here sounds more like restricting which OS-level APIs can be executed on a per-app basis. It sounds a lot like Java's sandboxing, parental controls and filtering network proxies.
What I would prefer is that if the plaintiff loses, they pay the attorney fees of the defendant.
While I agree that it would greatly cut down on frivolous suits, it can also end up stifling perfectly reasonable suits. If you have a completely legitimate suit against a corporation, they could throw a million dollars worth of lawyers at you and then make you pay for them all when you lose because your single lawyer isn't as good as the 50-person team he went up against.