Apple to Close Stores in Eastern District of Texas to Fight Patent Trolls • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple to Close Stores in Eastern District of Texas to Fight Patent Trolls

#121

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 10:36 PM UTC

ABCLAW wrote: post #120

btilly wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well obviously I don't agree. First of all from https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelpr... you can see that a higher portion of cases escalated from the Federal Circuit get reversed than any other federal circuit. Secondly from https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/empirical-scotus-the-heig... we see that over time the Supreme Court has been devoting more and more of its limited energy to overseeing…

Re: Last line. Yep. I do. In fact, the some of the cases your articles refer to directly refer to my amicus curiae contributions. The Federal Circuit was created, in part, to create certainty in patents. They keep trying to make frameworks, but they've all got issues. The Supreme Court doesn't like that they have issues, and blows up their rulings, but does not put anything affirmative back in place. So, functionally…

> The Federal Circuit was created, in part, to create certainty in patents.

It's probably time to admit that was a bad idea and that the way every other federal legal issue gets to the certainty provided by maturity (by being handled in the various geographical circuits which either evolve a consensus view or force the Supreme Court to settle a divergence with the benefit of competing frameworks from below, is, if not ideal, at least a better thing for patents than only having one appellate circuit.

Re: Apple to Close Stores in Eastern District of Texas to Fight Patent Trolls

#122

Post by yyyymmddhhmmss » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 10:47 PM UTC

SEJeff wrote: post #92

dublo7 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. My previous company has to deal with trolls like this. They somehow managed a patent on turning 2d pictures into 3d panoramas which Google and iPhone do in the phones. We used software from Germany but since it violated the patent and we were tiny, boom lawsuit. This supreme Court ruling saved the company because we got it transferred to our state and the judge laughed them away. It would be like suing a groc…

You might want to double check on "your" spell check patent :)

For emphasis, use italicization, not quotation.

Re: Apple to Close Stores in Eastern District of Texas to Fight Patent Trolls

#123

Post by ABCLAW » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 10:52 PM UTC

babypuncher wrote: post #107

kevin_b_er wrote: post #3

It seems quite reasonable for apple to avoid the renegade court. The court is known to intentionally violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the benefit of patent holders.[1] You must seek permission from the renegade judge in order to file Summary Judgement. "A party may move for summary judgment" They may not move for summary judgement, because the judge denies this in this court. "The court should state on…

Maybe I'm just really dumb, but can't anyone sued in this court just appeal to a higher court that isn't run by renegade turds?

If you do not make an argument at first instance, you cannot appeal a judgement on the ground that it was not considered.

So you're fighting in the lower court because you need to fight there. Remember, it's the fight that costs money, so no matter what you're always on the hook for something.

The question ends up being are you on the hook for the cost of the fight or the cost of paying them off.

Re: Apple to Close Stores in Eastern District of Texas to Fight Patent Trolls

#124

Post by mjevans » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 11:02 PM UTC

johnm1019 wrote: post #115

SEJeff wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to double check on "your" spell check patent :)

His spellcheck works fine, the grammar check is broken. :)

The English language is broken by design and historical practice with respect to spelling (borrowing when it needed to steal) and grammar; though it may possibly not be as broken as other historical languages.

Also, before you propose something like Esperanto; that language appears to be the antithesis of what I'd prefer as a replacement. The general design goals being more:

* a 'RISC' (rather than CISC) style use of verbal pallet (pick the most common international phonetics, not a regional 'good enough' set)

* purely phonetic spelling and pronunciation (one exact way to spell or say anything and vice versa)

* never mutate words for any reason (no tenses, conjugation, etc)

* no pronouns (only use proper nouns or descriptive selections)

* eliminate filler where possible (the, a, similar non-informational words); this would be more of an accepted grammar shift. If there is a reason for that use then more distinct and/or obvious reasons for using a replacement mechanism should be apparent and taught in standard education.

Re: Apple to Close Stores in Eastern District of Texas to Fight Patent Trolls

#125

Post by mjevans » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 11:16 PM UTC

ABCLAW wrote: post #120

btilly wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well obviously I don't agree. First of all from https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelpr... you can see that a higher portion of cases escalated from the Federal Circuit get reversed than any other federal circuit. Secondly from https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/empirical-scotus-the-heig... we see that over time the Supreme Court has been devoting more and more of its limited energy to overseeing…

Re: Last line. Yep. I do. In fact, the some of the cases your articles refer to directly refer to my amicus curiae contributions. The Federal Circuit was created, in part, to create certainty in patents. They keep trying to make frameworks, but they've all got issues. The Supreme Court doesn't like that they have issues, and blows up their rulings, but does not put anything affirmative back in place. So, functionally…

Or perhaps to admit that the concept is trying to build a skyscraper out of raw sand and that the very concept needs to be revisited.

My own /personal/ views on the IP related matters can be summarized:

Trade Mark(s): Good, keep forever as long as the presence in commercial offerings is refreshed on an ongoing basis; limit to /commercial/ for profit enforcement.

Copyright: Public domain needs to happen, a LOT faster. Renewal should need to be active and exponentially more expensive. Automatic copyright probably needs to expire after around 10 to 20 years. (I favor rounding down to the year and using 11 years for first registration, and a multiple of 5 years for rounds there after.)

Patents: Please prove me wrong that they aren't effective and are a myth. Processes of how to do things often come down to engineering and math; if given the same goal a solution is likely to be similar at it's core as for any given problem there is probably an ideal bound and variations of effort will produce similar results or results optimized slightly to different circumstances.

Re: Apple to Close Stores in Eastern District of Texas to Fight Patent Trolls

#126

Post by linux2647 » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 11:18 PM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #124

johnm1019 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His spellcheck works fine, the grammar check is broken. :)

The English language is broken by design and historical practice with respect to spelling (borrowing when it needed to steal) and grammar; though it may possibly not be as broken as other historical languages. Also, before you propose something like Esperanto; that language appears to be the antithesis of what I'd prefer as a replacement. The general design goals being more: * a 'RISC' (rather than CISC) style use of…

Maybe something like Toki Pona? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona

Re: Apple to Close Stores in Eastern District of Texas to Fight Patent Trolls

#127

Post by hug » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 11:20 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #97

thaumaturgy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone that's a fan of independent, local businesses and struggled with running one for 10 years: no business best described by the words "independent" and "local" can compete on all aspects of customer service with a megacorp. The resources just ain't there for it. It will have higher prices or poorer service, if one is opened at all.

What do you mean by "all aspects"? An mom and pop shop in a small town can have better service than a megacorp by personally knowing its customer base and adapting its policies to individuals. Megacorp customer service, by comparison, always involves some level of bureaucracy.

Since we’re talking about Apple stores, here’s an anecdote about competing on service: My iPhone was rebooting at random, in the middle of use, with some regularity. I was in an area with no Apple store, so I swung by an authorised Apple repairer/reseller. I explained my problem, and the guy around the counter, while very apologetic, explained there was no way I was having my phone swapped out. He didn’t have stock of my particular model, but even if he did, he said, if he swapped it out and Apple determined it to be non-defective, they’d make him eat the cost of the device, which he couldn’t afford.

A week later when I was back home I took it to the nearby Apple store. The lady there looked at it, shrugged, walked out back and came out with a new phone. This isn’t because she cared more, it’s because she cared less.

Re: Apple to Close Stores in Eastern District of Texas to Fight Patent Trolls

#128

Post by kevin_b_er » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 11:29 PM UTC

rudyfink wrote: post #94

kevin_b_er wrote: post #3

It seems quite reasonable for apple to avoid the renegade court. The court is known to intentionally violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the benefit of patent holders.[1] You must seek permission from the renegade judge in order to file Summary Judgement. "A party may move for summary judgment" They may not move for summary judgement, because the judge denies this in this court. "The court should state on…

-the article the OP is referring to discusses an old letter briefing requirement in the Eastern District of Texas. That requirement has not existed in patent cases in EDTX since 2016 ( https://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2016/07/... ). -As the "mcsmith.blogs" article mentions, the letter briefing process the EDTX had used was recommended by the Federal Judicial Center as a case management strategy in…

It isn't that they didn't grant or deny, its that they had a 3rd category: FORBIDDEN from asking for summary judgement.

This makes the 10-30% number of little meaning, because there's a whole of of summary judgements that got a forbidden marker. They're not in the set of summary judgements granted, because there was no motion. The motion never happened because they were forbidden from being filed. So what's the real percentage? Do we know how many summary judgements never got filed because the judges never let them get filed?

Re: Apple to Close Stores in Eastern District of Texas to Fight Patent Trolls

#129

Post by mjevans » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 11:29 PM UTC

linux2647 wrote: post #126

mjevans wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The English language is broken by design and historical practice with respect to spelling (borrowing when it needed to steal) and grammar; though it may possibly not be as broken as other historical languages. Also, before you propose something like Esperanto; that language appears to be the antithesis of what I'd prefer as a replacement. The general design goals being more: * a 'RISC' (rather than CISC) style use of…

Maybe something like Toki Pona? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona

It seems close to my goals, but violates one of the main ones related to lowering the entry barrier.

All the letter (and sounds) used NEED to be pronounced, the same way, for native speakers of English, French, Russian, Spanish, and also various major (eastern) Asian languages. That means that when an otherwise uneducated (in languages/reading the squiggly version of words from a dictionary) user in one of those languages tries to read one of the words it should sound like only a slight accent, not a major flub.

J should never have been used.

"14 Latin letters, a e i j k l m n o p s t u w, are used to write the language. They have the same values as in the International Phonetic Alphabet:[38] j sounds like English y, and the vowels are like those of Spanish or Italian. Capital initials are used to mark proper adjectives, while Toki Pona roots are always written with lowercase letters, even when they start a sentence.[39]"

--

Edit about the difference in vowels/etc: If there isn't a common ground in notation for symbols, then the writing for the language CAN'T map back to any existing phonetic symbol system either. It MAY use existing non-phonetic symbols and assign new uses for them, but it MUST NOT reuse such symbols that have conflicted mappings in existing languages.

Re: Apple to Close Stores in Eastern District of Texas to Fight Patent Trolls

#130

Post by naniwaduni » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 11:33 PM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #129

linux2647 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe something like Toki Pona? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona

It seems close to my goals, but violates one of the main ones related to lowering the entry barrier. All the letter (and sounds) used NEED to be pronounced, the same way, for native speakers of English, French, Russian, Spanish, and also various major (eastern) Asian languages. That means that when an otherwise uneducated (in languages/reading the squiggly version of words from a dictionary) user in one of those lang…

> All the letter (and sounds) used NEED to be pronounced, the same way, for native speakers of English, French, Russian, Spanish, and also various major (eastern) Asian languages. That means that when an otherwise uneducated (in languages/reading the squiggly version of words from a dictionary) user in one of those languages tries to read one of the words it should sound like only a slight accent, not a major flub.

This constraint effectively removes vowels from your phonetic inventory.