61–70 of 189 posts
I can't view the link because it's expired, so I'll just post my rant here. The entire point of patents, as delineated in the U.S. Constitution, is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." So patents are a means , of securing an end , which is "the progress of science and useful arts".…
Could anyone translate the legalese into plain English for us lay-men.
Sure, it isn't really that bad - mostly the same boilerplate repeated _ad nauseum_. They are being sued by two patent troll LLC's in the Eastern District of Texas. The patents (9) are very generic sounding: * Data Processing System Using Substantially Unique Identifiers to Identify Data Items, Whereby Data Items Have the Same Identifiers. * Identifying and Requesting Data in Network Using Identifiers Which Are Based…
There was merit in the concept of file deduplication, especially in distributed file systems, as I'm unsure if this existed as prior art since I can't find any reasonable literature before 2000. I'm pretty sure someone had created a file deduplication script in UNIX at least 20-30 years prior, but I can't find references to that work, so I'll assume none exists and give this patent the benefit of the doubt. Though the 'uniq' command in UNIX could be trivially used to implement this if you consider the use of MD for file uniqueness checks, so even that credibility is questionable. For example, fill a file with contents such as:
\n
For all files in the filesystem, then uniq on the first N characters where N is the length of the md hash, and use -d to display duplicates, then remove those files. This can also be used as the mechanism for "attaching a substantially unique id to a file" as well as half of the claims in the first patent, which to me makes a strong argument that it was obvious.
However, everything else about it describes an obvious application and implementation of a hash table using a "substantially unique" hashing method, which could easily be described by MD5 which was published in 1992. For that reason, at least half of the claims in this patent are covered by prior art, and so the patent is, IMO, far too broad to be considered valid.
I can't view the link because it's expired, so I'll just post my rant here. The entire point of patents, as delineated in the U.S. Constitution, is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." So patents are a means , of securing an end , which is "the progress of science and useful arts".…
The patents in question: http://www.google.com/patents/US5978791 http://www.google.com/patents/US6415280 http://www.google.com/patents/US6928442 http://www.google.com/patents/US7802310 http://www.google.com/patents/US7945539 http://www.google.com/patents/US7945544 http://www.google.com/patents/US7949662 http://www.google.com/patents/US8001096 http://www.google.com/patents/US8099420
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it really possible that there are companies that just holds patents and are allowed to sue others who does things. No shame. What a world we are living at... This seems to be company who is suing Github and Rackspace. http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/sn...
Applying for a patent is a costly and tedious process, so it's not strange the there are companies ready to take the work from individual inventor's hands. If that weren't allowed, large companies would have an advantage since they have a legal department. In any case, making a law against patent trolls would be difficult because if you require a minimum amount of non-patent work from them, they would simply meet tha…
Interesting that Level3 - yes, that Level3 - is a 50% owner of the patents.
It would seem that Level3 has a chance to be a hero by licensing these patents to whomever for a nominal fee. Edit: replying to the comments. Licensing for a nominal fee isnt pure, but it is practical. It would certainly discourage the trolls. I dont think you can put something in the public domain if you are only a partial owner.
If someone were to charge me 'right of way' tomorrow to leave my house and the cost would only be $1 I wouldn't pay up, I'd shove them out of the way. There is not 'right' price for extortion.
I can't view the link because it's expired, so I'll just post my rant here. The entire point of patents, as delineated in the U.S. Constitution, is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." So patents are a means , of securing an end , which is "the progress of science and useful arts".…
All through history patents have always hindered innovation and progress, and there is plenty of research to back this up:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h...
I think it should be obvious by now for anyone that we are well past the point where the system is fixable, the only solution is to abolish it or it will again become captured by trolls, oligopolies and lawyers and used to crush anyone doing anything innovative and useful.
Interesting that Level3 - yes, that Level3 - is a 50% owner of the patents.
It would seem that Level3 has a chance to be a hero by licensing these patents to whomever for a nominal fee. Edit: replying to the comments. Licensing for a nominal fee isnt pure, but it is practical. It would certainly discourage the trolls. I dont think you can put something in the public domain if you are only a partial owner.
Licencing them for a nominal fee is still reserving the right to change your mind. Is a bit like saying that you aren't going to use the nukes, but you want to keep them around just in case you feel like obliterating anyone in the future.
The patents were issued and the law must be enforced. You might not like it -- so change it! Reminds me of when Teddy Roosevelt vigorously enforced prohibition to the point that is really pissed people off. The point that I gleaned from this was that he wanted people to stand up and change the law. I hope that patent trolls raise a stink and enforce their rights because it will hopefully lead to change. UPDATE: see c…
Wrong Roosevelt. Teddy was President from 1901 to 1909, and died in January 19. The Prohibition amendment was ratified 10 days after he died, and took effect one year later. The Presidents who were in office during Prohibition where Woodrow Wilson, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt assumed office on March 4, 1933, when the effort to repeal it was already…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jurisdiction is a huge factor when filing suits. IP lawyers do their best to move cases into Tyler, TX (or other backwoods cities) where the judges don't understand technology whatsoever. A popular tactic is to shake down porn companies for money using nuisance patent suits.
Do you really think it is because they supposedly don't understand technology? I've read that they are simply particularly "sympathetic" to patents over there, which is why there are a host of patent trolls / NPEs that have their mail address over there. This American Life had a good episode about it.