Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Red Squirrel, Jan 28, 2013.
They didn't teach this in school...
Jonas Salk, isn't he one-third of that singing brothers trio? :whiste:
How many of you read the article? I know "Newegg sucks" is apparently the current them about them on here but damn if this doesn't make me want to go build a new PC:
Did you read the thread? I don't think that anybody in here said anything remotely close to "Newegg sucks".
Depends on the terms of the settlement. Usually, there's some language in there to the effect of "this is it, case closed, no new info, zip, bang, boom, to the moon!"
There's been a lot of people saying Newegg sucks, not in this thread but ATOT in general. Generally its the same idiocy (not contacting customer support or getting pissed about some shipping issue caused by a hurricane or something) that ATOT used to jump all over people for, but now half the people are saying "yeah they're shit now". Some still defend them but, well its ATOT. That's what my point on that was about.
Some of use actually like Newegg and now even more. I've never had anything but great service from Newegg and this case kicks ass!
im not even sure if patents are a good idea in any case. or, have patents but the patent holder simply collects a yearly royalty based on fair market value and number of goods sold... to have this system now where nobody else can perfect your idea just causes stagnentation in innovation.
If I was king of America, I'll make it so that you can only patent the exact product. If your product sucks and someone else improves it and out sell you? Oh well, try harder next time.
And the penalty for losing frivolous lawsuits is castration, start with the lawyer, then the people who brought on the suit.
LOL yeah those are hilarious quotes. Definitely buying from Newegg more now lol.
All the times I've bought there have been a pretty decent experience too. I just tend to buy from Tigerdirect and NCIX since they're in Canada. But Newegg does have a Canadian site so at least I don't pay customs.
Most likely lose it.
FWIW, this was not the easiest case for Newegg to win. They likely spent millions on invalidating the patent in question. And the invalidation required expert testimony of the former chief technology officer of compuserve. It was also a case of sovereign shooting themselves in the foot by arguing for a very broad claim interpretation that ultimately made their claims vulnerable to an invalidity argument.
Also FWIW, the activity pursued by sovereign is perfectly legal. You can argue that its "not right" till you are blue in the face, but patents are (for better and for worse) treated as property that (like real estate) may be exchanged between parties and (like real estate) may be used to prevent others from taking action (i.e., entering/using property).
That said, good for Newegg for standing up to a non-practicing entity and winning.
Good thing for me (and the rest of us) that you don't rule America.
Did you conveniently forget about my second line? It's fool proof. I own you and everyone.
Care to back up your incredibly broad statements?
FWIW, one option for damages in a patent infringement suit is a "reasonable royalty" based on fair market value. See this article for a pretty good overview for other mechanisms for assessing damages:
http://www.cornerstone.com/files/Pu...ting Damages in Patent Infringement Cases.pdf
Settlement = binding contract, usually sanctioned by a court. They ain't getting their money back.
License = binding contract. Not sanctioned by a court . . . but likely doesn't matter because it was probably structured so that payment was a lump sum or otherwise front loaded (all payments made up front).
What seems obvious now . . . might not have been 20 years ago.
The U.S. patent system doesn't give you the right to do anything except prevent others from doing something within your claims (i.e., to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, or export the claimed invention).
There are very good (and valid) arguments that the patent system encourages innovation, often to a significant degree. It may stifle innovation in certain cirumstances, but having those limited circumstances guide the system as a whole is like having the cart drive the horse.
The patent system itself DOES in fact prevent patenting of overly broad claims and things that are already in use. Did anyone bother to look at the patents that were at issue in the newegg case? I did. One was filed in 1994. Anyone here remember what the state of the internet was back in 1994? I do. It was for most part a bunch of vax servers and a sorrier than shit bunch of bulletin boards. Mosaic was on the scene, but hardly anyone knew about it.
The patent system per se is fine. If you want to point fingers, point them at the USPTO. Examiners are simply not given enough time to exhaustively examine each application put before them. I know. I was one for many years before I left to become a patent attorney. In the face of those constraints, outliers (if you can even call the cases in the Newegg suit that) will get through the PTO.
Yes, but both of those things existed 20 years ago and both were already old news.
Usually the latter.
And they might not be dumbasses. When faced with the following options, which would you pick?
A) Sovereign says, pay us $100k and we'll go away; or
B) Sovereign says, ok, you won't pay? Lets fight in court, you'll spend $1+ million, and and then you might lose and pay us a lot more than the $100k we're asking for.
Most companies pay the $100k. Newegg didn't. While they won, they didn't exactly come out on top financially, did they? And Sovereign's argument of infringement was not terrible, which is why the CAFC did not order them to pay Newegg's legal fees (FWIW - ordering one party to pay the other parties legal fees is generally rare in the US).
Others have answered this question differently, but my 2c is that complications are introduced when several companies join to fight the same lawsuit. The case gets infinitely more complex, there are privilege/conflict issues (if A and B join forces to fight a suit by C, who controls the litigation? Are communications between A and B's attorneys privileged?, etc.) Its just . . . simpler to fight a suit one on one.
Salk donated his polio vacccine "to the world." A brilliant and generous man . . . but arguably a complete financial idiot.
Not really my point, but sure.
FWIW, my point was that you when you are looking at a patent from 20 years ago, you need to consider what was old and obvious back then. Not what is old and obvious now.
Actually I think he's on to something. There definitely needs to be a hammer brought down on all these stupid lawsuits. Not just patents, but all stupid lawsuits in general.
Actually how about this. When you sue someone and lose, you should have to pay the money you were suing for, to the victim! So you want to make some stupid lawsuit? Well the money you ask for better be an amount you are willing to lose if the lawsuit does not go your way.
Would also stop people from suing for ridiculous arbitrarily made up amounts because they'd have to make sure that what they sue for they can afford to lose. Give it a risk element, and perhaps all these stupid lawsuits that happen would stop, or at least slow down.
Everything in the solar system works "because of science," so by your argument no one should be able to patent anything?!?
FWIW, laws of nature and mere ideas are already not patentable in the US. See 35 USC 101. There are innumerable cases on that very point. You are complaining because you don't see any of those cases and your limited understanding of the patent law is based on one case a website happened to post about.
There is quite a bit of litigation ongoing right now that is dealing with what is and is not patentable subject matter. You might want to take a look at some of those cases, and many of them concern software.
For the most part, existing U.S. patent law prevents technology that has been previously used from becoming patented. Trade secrets are a limited exception, as the patent law is skewed towards favoring disclosure of technology.
An interesting idea. But seeing as how congress can't pass a BUDGET in four years I don't see how they would update the patent law to keep up with the whims of the modern world. What would the "trend" be based on? How would something be determined to be "trendy?" What population are we talking about? The US, some country in Africa, etc.?
Do you have any idea what the USPTO does?
Under the America Invents Act (the bulk of which goes into effect March 16 of this year), there are multiple avenues to challenge a recently granted patent without having to resort to full blown litigation. See, e.g., http://www.fr.com/reexam-services-post-grant-pgreview/
* Note - I am not affiliated with Fish and Richardson.
Patents is a complicate thing during the international business.