Patent troll suing everyone for using Internet he invented... he may win...

[Patranus]

so someone should have a patent to a switch? a car? the wheel? the 16:9 shape of TVs?

yea, great idea. allow patents for obvious things. if several people/groups of people create something at roughly the same time without knowing about the others invention then who patents it is irrelevant. it shouldn't be a valid patent. a patent shouldn't be something obvious.

Again, if these things were so obvious than people have been doing them long before it became an issue. It is only obvious after the discover/invention.

And you get bet your bottom dollar that there are patents on switches, cars, wheels, and televisions.

 

[ioni]

Patents are the only thing that protects innovation and creativity.


Berners-Lee thinks these patents could hinder future web development by others

Not even a whole sentence before you proved yourself wrong. Nice trollin' there tex.

 

[CanOWorms]

What about the trend of companies patenting genes wholesale without any really good idea of what they do.

Those patents would be invalid.

 

[rhino56]

So if he wins then he is also responsible for the mass file sharing and liable for any damages that have been incurred.

 

[SparkyJJO]

So if this is all true, why did he wait almost 20 freakin' years?!

I'm sorry, but that totally screams patent troll right there. If you're wronged, take care of it. If you wait that long you're just being a giant douche.

IMO, if you have a patent that gets infringed upon, and you wait several years to let the "damages" pile up so you can sue for gobs more money, you should be SOL. Wait longer than X amount of time, you lose.

 

[RavenSEAL]

The problem is you should only be allowed to patent something that is concrete, and non obvious. Patenting things like DNA genes or the one click buying process that amazon has only ends up limiting creativity in the long run. It's getting to the point now where scientists can't do basic medical research without having to wade through a mile of red tape to get past numerous company patents on the genes they wish to study. Similar for simple and obvious internet processes like clicking images and downloading files and the like.

Amen!

Shit, that word is copyrighted...

 

[Bignate603]

So if this is all true, why did he wait almost 20 freakin' years?!

I'm sorry, but that totally screams patent troll right there. If you're wronged, take care of it. If you wait that long you're just being a giant douche.

IMO, if you have a patent that gets infringed upon, and you wait several years to let the "damages" pile up so you can sue for gobs more money, you should be SOL. Wait longer than X amount of time, you lose.

I am pretty sure that one of the defenses in these sort of lawsuits is that the patent owner did not bother to defend his patent when it was being used obviously and openly. By not pursuing legal action against the infringer in a reasonable amount of time they are effectively giving permission to use their patent.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

He invented something using something invented by someone else mmmmmm


The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.

 

[DirkGently1]

Patents are ridiculous. If you 'invent' something, you should damn well have to compete on a level playing field with others that may market that idea. It's not good enough to simply come up with an idea, and then be paid for that idea even when you yourself do nothing with it.

Part of the process has to be bringing something to market, and making it better than your competitors can. Nobody should own 'code', any more than an Author owns the words that he writes in a book. Should an Author be allowed to patent words, just because he wrote them in a novel order? If you had spontaneously invented writing, should you be able to patent that so that nobody else can ever do the same without paying you? Of course not. Everyone should be able to take that writing, turn it into their own stories, and the best written stories are the ones that flourish.

If there is ever a dispute over who did what first, as there has been many, many times, the only thing that should matter is who did something useful with it first. The argument over who invented the lightbulb is a good example. Swan invented and patented it, but Edison was the first to do anything meaningful with it.

Patents stifle innovation and competition. The whole system is ludicrous.

 

[silverpig]

If he has legit patents that are supported by the court, more power to him.
Nothing wrong with him asserting his intellectual property if valid.

Who gives a shit what Amazon or Tim Berners-Lee has to say on the subject. Their opinions are irrelevant.

I love how everyone calls people "patent trolls" for defending their intellectual property just because they think they are entitled to use it free of charge.

If the patent is found to be valid, the man should get paid and he should use to court to enforce his intellectual property rights.
If the patent if found invalid then the case will be thrown out.

Nothing controversial about any of this.

Just because it is supported by the current law doesn't make it right.

 

[CPA]

And of course they choose to have this play out in front of 8 East Texas yokels.

As opposed to 8 big city quasi-intellects?

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Let me remind you about a guy called Thomas Edison and how Hollywood ended up being in California

 

[Nebor]

As opposed to 8 big city quasi-intellects?

Most people in Tyler probably think the internet is a tool of the devil. That and it's good for forwarding around those right wing humor chain emails.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Patents are ridiculous. If you 'invent' something, you should damn well have to compete on a level playing field with others that may market that idea. It's not good enough to simply come up with an idea, and then be paid for that idea even when you yourself do nothing with it.

Part of the process has to be bringing something to market, and making it better than your competitors can. Nobody should own 'code', any more than an Author owns the words that he writes in a book. Should an Author be allowed to patent words, just because he wrote them in a novel order? If you had spontaneously invented writing, should you be able to patent that so that nobody else can ever do the same without paying you? Of course not. Everyone should be able to take that writing, turn it into their own stories, and the best written stories are the ones that flourish.

If there is ever a dispute over who did what first, as there has been many, many times, the only thing that should matter is who did something useful with it first. The argument over who invented the lightbulb is a good example. Swan invented and patented it, but Edison was the first to do anything meaningful with it.

Patents stifle innovation and competition. The whole system is ludicrous.

says the guy who never had an original idea in his life.

 

[Bignate603]

Patents are ridiculous. If you 'invent' something, you should damn well have to compete on a level playing field with others that may market that idea. It's not good enough to simply come up with an idea, and then be paid for that idea even when you yourself do nothing with it.

Part of the process has to be bringing something to market, and making it better than your competitors can. Nobody should own 'code', any more than an Author owns the words that he writes in a book. Should an Author be allowed to patent words, just because he wrote them in a novel order? If you had spontaneously invented writing, should you be able to patent that so that nobody else can ever do the same without paying you? Of course not. Everyone should be able to take that writing, turn it into their own stories, and the best written stories are the ones that flourish.

If there is ever a dispute over who did what first, as there has been many, many times, the only thing that should matter is who did something useful with it first. The argument over who invented the lightbulb is a good example. Swan invented and patented it, but Edison was the first to do anything meaningful with it.

Patents stifle innovation and competition. The whole system is ludicrous.

You're incorrect. Patents encourage innovation. If you had no ability to protect your ideas there would be much less motivation to make anything new.

Without any sort of patent system individuals and small companies would have no chance to pursue anything new. Companies with more resources would swoop in, take the idea, and crush the person or company that actually created the idea.

Even though there are problems with our patent system we still need the ability to protect ideas. The person that comes up with something new should be the one to reap the benefits.

 

[Ancalagon44]

I love that not even Tim Berners-Lee has tried to invalidate the patent on technical or prior art grounds. Instead they just go on about how harmful it would be.

Well duh, yeah, thats why we have been saying patents were damaging the software industry for the past decade. Maybe after everyone and their dog has to pay royalties for using it, they will sit up and listen to those who say the system needs reform.

You're incorrect. Patents encourage innovation. If you had no ability to protect your ideas there would be much less motivation to make anything new.

Without any sort of patent system individuals and small companies would have no chance to pursue anything new. Companies with more resources would swoop in, take the idea, and crush the person or company that actually created the idea.

Even though there are problems with our patent system we still need the ability to protect ideas. The person that comes up with something new should be the one to reap the benefits.

You spout out the rhetoric but you dont properly understand the issues. This guy's patent is valid - is it right that he has the entire Internet on its knees?

 

[Jeffg010]

Let's Get Ready to Rummmmmmmmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbbbllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllle

Here come Michael Buffer to sue my ass....

 

[Bignate603]

You spout out the rhetoric but you dont properly understand the issues. This guy's patent is valid - is it right that he has the entire Internet on its knees?

I fully understand the issues, I've gone through the patent process 5 times.

I admit there are problems with the patent system but people that are saying all patents are wrong are absolutely ignorant. For every patent troll there are hundreds, if not thousands, of good patents that serve a valid purpose.

In this case in particular I don't think that they patent should be upheld simply because they took so long to defend it. You shouldn't be able to get a patent, sit on it for over a decade while people build businesses that unknowingly violate it, then star massive suits to extort them for money. If you aren't actively defending your patent when it is public knowledge that someone is violating it that should be considered the same as giving permission.

Additionally, I think that for a patent to be valid you should be required to be actively trying to make use of it either directly or by seeking licensing. This would help prevent patent trolls from patenting huge swaths of the IP landscape with the sole intention of creating these sort of cases. If you're not trying to use it you shouldn't have the sole legal right to it.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

I love that not even Tim Berners-Lee has tried to invalidate the patent on technical or prior art grounds. Instead they just go on about how harmful it would be.

Well duh, yeah, thats why we have been saying patents were damaging the software industry for the past decade. Maybe after everyone and their dog has to pay royalties for using it, they will sit up and listen to those who say the system needs reform.



You spout out the rhetoric but you dont properly understand the issues. This guy's patent is valid - is it right that he has the entire Internet on its knees?

Valid now or valid back in 93? I would assume new patent laws don't cover it.

 

[drebo]

If he has legit patents that are supported by the court, more power to him.
Nothing wrong with him asserting his intellectual property if valid.

Who gives a shit what Amazon or Tim Berners-Lee has to say on the subject. Their opinions are irrelevant.

I love how everyone calls people "patent trolls" for defending their intellectual property just because they think they are entitled to use it free of charge.

If the patent is found to be valid, the man should get paid and he should use to court to enforce his intellectual property rights.
If the patent if found invalid then the case will be thrown out.

Nothing controversial about any of this.

How can you not see the problems here?

Joe Blow patents the ability to type code into a text editor and have it run. Now every piece of software ever written is in violation of the patent.

This is no different.

The patent office awards far too many patents that are incredibly vague. The consequences of this fuckstick winning this case are extremely dire and will put the US at a HUGE disadvantage in comparison to the rest of the world regarding ecommerce and "interactive web".

Hell, this forum could be considered an "interactive web". Maybe you'd like for Anandtech to be sued and driven out of business or forced to charge for access to the forums to cover ridiculous licensing costs on a patent that should never have been granted.

Or, maybe we should go back to 1992 when the Internet was nothing but static pages and information. You'd probably like that. Of course, a huge percentage of people in the US rely on an "interactive web" for their jobs...but don't let that stand in the way of the government police state!

GUMMENT CAN DO NO WRONG!!!111!!1!ONE!!!!

 

[drebo]

You spout out the rhetoric but you dont properly understand the issues. This guy's patent is valid - is it right that he has the entire Internet on its knees?

A patent is supposed to be for something that is not common-sense or generally accepted practice.

I fail to see how any patent related to something as generic as an "interactive web" could qualify.

The USPTO needs to be abolished. Let the US join the fucking 21st century and the rest of the damn world.

(*Note: This does not mean that I favor copyright infringement.)

 

[Locut0s]

Those patents would be invalid.

Companies are getting the patents as we speak. All they have to show currently is some vague notion of what they THINK the gene does and some POSSIBLE medical uses for it. They are patenting them en mass so they can get future profits off drugs that target these genes but they don't actually really know what they do currently.

 

[OutHouse]

so someone should have a patent to a switch? a car? the wheel? the 16:9 shape of TVs?

yea, great idea. allow patents for obvious things. if several people/groups of people create something at roughly the same time without knowing about the others invention then who patents it is irrelevant. it shouldn't be a valid patent. a patent shouldn't be something obvious.

actually yes. in 1990 the guy who invented the intermittent wiper switch won his lawsuit against Ford for stealing his invention.


http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20118404,00.html

 

[Locut0s]

actually yes. in 1990 the guy who invented the intermittent wiper switch won his lawsuit against Ford for stealing his invention.


http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20118404,00.html

I think they made a fairly good documentary on this as well.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Companies are getting the patents as we speak. All they have to show currently is some vague notion of what they THINK the gene does and some POSSIBLE medical uses for it. They are patenting them en mass so they can get future profits off drugs that target these genes but they don't actually really know what they do currently.

I don't think that you fully understand exactly what they're patenting.

Patent articles tend to be sensationalist since the authors tend to not understand the legal effect of a patent, but this one seems kind of broad.