I'd like to remind everyone about Microsoft and their FAT patent. First it was granted, then a huge lobby of companies and organizations protested and asked for re-examination. The USPTO invalidated several patents, MS appealed and a couple years later they were validated and remain valid to this date.
This is like a football team winning by a couple of touchdowns, only to read in Monday's newspaper that they lost because the Rules Committee decided that morning that all rushing touchdowns are invalid. Not only do you not win that game, but you are no longer in the playoffs, and your investment in a rushing attack was wasted.
It may be the law, and business as usual, but it still seems wrong that the organization that gave you the green light, turns around and gives you a ticket for moving forward with the patent. I would like to know on what basis it was deemed invalid? Which sifi/fantasy show did this patent in, and on the basis of such things, can any patent issued by this office mean anything?
You forgot to mention that the match was rigged before it even started.
What do you need him for? He only shows up first when it's good for Apple anyway. Everyone's favorite shill explained it pretty well and clearly on his blog this morning, even if the last paragraph shows his biased colors straight through.
Umm.... I assume you forgot to read the first sentence of my post.
Seems like Apple just wants to patent anything and everything, hoping the slow response by the patent office will give them enough time for legal injunctions and block competitors from releasing products.
Or in other words, becoming a practicing patent troll.
Wasting thousands if not millions of dollars of tax payers money (through the USPTO) with frivolous "patents".
What they are doing is abusing the system to take advantage of it and to, ultimately, restrict competition for their own benefit.
Preliminary, not final. And MS has several FAT patents that were invalidated only to be reinstated later on.
Besides, I wouldn't trust anything Torvalds has to say on the stand in any case involving MS.
You seem to be a fan of the FAT patent. Do you think it should be considered standard-essential? After all they've gone after nearly everyone including linux-based providers, with Microsoft feeling that every computer system makes use of it in one way or another. IMO, sure sounds essential.
Comments
Thank god the patent office seems to be coming to it's senses. Maybe they will quite granting these ridiculous and obvious software patents...
That is something Apple will likely bring up, especially if they mentioned the same prior art in their filing.
What USPTO?!? Apple didn't invent easing functions for moving objects in graphical programming? Well....DUH!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I'd like to remind everyone about Microsoft and their FAT patent. First it was granted, then a huge lobby of companies and organizations protested and asked for re-examination. The USPTO invalidated several patents, MS appealed and a couple years later they were validated and remain valid to this date.
Since you mention it...
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/ms-patent/
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger
Thank god the patent office seems to be coming to it's senses. Maybe they will quite granting these ridiculous and obvious software patents...
It's only obvious once someone has come up with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger
Thank god the patent office seems to be coming to it's senses. Maybe they will quite granting these ridiculous and obvious software patents...
It's only obvious once someone thinks of it.
I think USPTO keeps the application fee. It's probably a case of inappropriate incentives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer
This is like a football team winning by a couple of touchdowns, only to read in Monday's newspaper that they lost because the Rules Committee decided that morning that all rushing touchdowns are invalid. Not only do you not win that game, but you are no longer in the playoffs, and your investment in a rushing attack was wasted.
It may be the law, and business as usual, but it still seems wrong that the organization that gave you the green light, turns around and gives you a ticket for moving forward with the patent. I would like to know on what basis it was deemed invalid? Which sifi/fantasy show did this patent in, and on the basis of such things, can any patent issued by this office mean anything?
You forgot to mention that the match was rigged before it even started.
Anyways, back to the story:
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
What do you need him for? He only shows up first when it's good for Apple anyway. Everyone's favorite shill explained it pretty well and clearly on his blog this morning, even if the last paragraph shows his biased colors straight through.
Umm.... I assume you forgot to read the first sentence of my post.
Besides, I wouldn't trust anything Torvalds has to say on the stand in any case involving MS.
Seems like Apple just wants to patent anything and everything, hoping the slow response by the patent office will give them enough time for legal injunctions and block competitors from releasing products.
Or in other words, becoming a practicing patent troll.
Wasting thousands if not millions of dollars of tax payers money (through the USPTO) with frivolous "patents".
What they are doing is abusing the system to take advantage of it and to, ultimately, restrict competition for their own benefit.
That is both legally and ethically wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Preliminary, not final. And MS has several FAT patents that were invalidated only to be reinstated later on.
Besides, I wouldn't trust anything Torvalds has to say on the stand in any case involving MS.
You seem to be a fan of the FAT patent. Do you think it should be considered standard-essential? After all they've gone after nearly everyone including linux-based providers, with Microsoft feeling that every computer system makes use of it in one way or another. IMO, sure sounds essential.
Scratching my head..
How a company's patent be invalidated based on prior art of the company's own patent is beyond me..?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150
Apparently one of the two prior art that invalidated the rubber band patent is Apple's own patent..
Scratching my head..
How a company's patent be invalidated based on prior art of the company's own patent is beyond me..?
That is just further proof that the USPTO is not doing their job.
Originally Posted by Galbi
What they are doing is abusing the system to take advantage of it and to, ultimately, restrict competition for their own benefit.
That is both legally and ethically wrong.
lol.
It's been said a million times - the US patent system is a joke.
It doesn't protect real innovations, it discourages innovation, and enriches lawyers and trolls...
I think he got banned.
That was just a three-day ban that was lifted a week or two ago, I think.