Un-fucking-believable
furbo.org
Un-fucking-believable
1–10 of 18 posts
Re: Un-fucking-believable
#2> Patents are like trademarks, you have to protect them after you get them (by collecting licensing fees, even if it’s a small one.)
Unfuckingbelievable indeed. He needs to fire his lawyer.
Re: Un-fucking-believable
#3> Patents are like trademarks, you have to protect them after you get them (by collecting licensing fees, even if it’s a small one.) Unfuckingbelievable indeed. He needs to fire his lawyer.
It's not a use-it-or-lose-it like a trademark, but my understanding is that selective enforcement of the patent could put legal actions against the people you do go after in jeopardy.
Re: Un-fucking-believable
#4> Patents are like trademarks, you have to protect them after you get them (by collecting licensing fees, even if it’s a small one.) Unfuckingbelievable indeed. He needs to fire his lawyer.
It's not a use-it-or-lose-it like a trademark, but my understanding is that selective enforcement of the patent could put legal actions against the people you do go after in jeopardy.
This argument seems fishy. He could have "licensed it" for $1 if that were the case. Instead, reading between the lines here, it sounds like he caused considerable hardship and non-trivial money to the creator of something that was essentially still in the "free beta" stage of development.
He can say whatever he wants to ease his conscience, if it walks like a troll...
Re: Un-fucking-believable
#5Maybe the lesson is that using patents as a deterrent from others using your idea is just too fraught with complications and costs. The best way to stay competitive is by relentlessly improving and effectively marketing your product.
Re: Un-fucking-believable
#6It's a pastebin. Long texts on pastebin are the tabloids of the internet. Why would you even respond to this?
Re: Un-fucking-believable
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a use-it-or-lose-it like a trademark, but my understanding is that selective enforcement of the patent could put legal actions against the people you do go after in jeopardy.
This argument seems fishy. He could have "licensed it" for $1 if that were the case. Instead, reading between the lines here, it sounds like he caused considerable hardship and non-trivial money to the creator of something that was essentially still in the "free beta" stage of development. He can say whatever he wants to ease his conscience, if it walks like a troll...
Craig hold a patent (not unreasonable in this day and age); Ricci was made aware Craig held that patent; They amicably settled for a reasonable, and small, amount.
What's the problem here? Spend your efforts writing to your members of parliament or donating to anti-patent organisations.
Re: Un-fucking-believable
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument seems fishy. He could have "licensed it" for $1 if that were the case. Instead, reading between the lines here, it sounds like he caused considerable hardship and non-trivial money to the creator of something that was essentially still in the "free beta" stage of development. He can say whatever he wants to ease his conscience, if it walks like a troll...
Craig hold a patent (not unreasonable in this day and age); Ricci was made aware Craig held that patent; They amicably settled for a reasonable, and small, amount. What's the problem here? Spend your efforts writing to your members of parliament or donating to anti-patent organisations.
"amicably" and "reasonable" by the patent holder's terms...
Your parent comment has a good point.
Re: Un-fucking-believable
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a use-it-or-lose-it like a trademark, but my understanding is that selective enforcement of the patent could put legal actions against the people you do go after in jeopardy.
This argument seems fishy. He could have "licensed it" for $1 if that were the case. Instead, reading between the lines here, it sounds like he caused considerable hardship and non-trivial money to the creator of something that was essentially still in the "free beta" stage of development. He can say whatever he wants to ease his conscience, if it walks like a troll...
I'd have to hear the conditions of the license before I actually accused him of actually being a troll (p=30% in my book). I suspect the license actually was $1, 10% of revenue on a program understood to be freeware, 1 license to run the program should it become payed, 1 free beer should they meet, etc (fine in my book -- it's a defensive patent). But it could have been something that I would consider abusive. I just don't know.
I hesitantly accept the story as presented by these two business partners. But do I think it's "Un-fucking-believable" that someone would come to the opposite conclusion? Absolutely not. I do think it's puzzling that he doesn't realize that the ONLY thing we have to go on is his word and the word of somebody heavily incentivized to not badmouth him, and that this puts everyone else in a position of extreme uncertainty. That attitude smacks of "it's not trolling when I do it" and does slightly reduce the credibility of the claim. But only slightly -- I stand by my p=70% estimate that they're genuine and I can understand the frustration of having people assume the opposite.
Re: Un-fucking-believable
#10> Patents are like trademarks, you have to protect them after you get them (by collecting licensing fees, even if it’s a small one.) Unfuckingbelievable indeed. He needs to fire his lawyer.
It's not a use-it-or-lose-it like a trademark, but my understanding is that selective enforcement of the patent could put legal actions against the people you do go after in jeopardy.
I'd really like to see a cite for this claim. I looked and could find zero reference to a patent holder's responsibility to enforce in order to maintain a patent's validity. AFAIK a patent holder is free to enforce their patent as they see fit, just as a copyright holder can. Otherwise there could be no such thing as a purely defensive patent, no?
Edit: Here we go[1]. So a patent holder can lose their ability to collect damages if they notify an infringer of their infringement but then fail to take action against that particular infringer within a certain period. There's no damage to the patent merely because of selective (or absence of) enforcement.
[1] http://www.lawabel.com/patent-damages-laches-and-equitable-e...