point of evidence 5,436 that US software patents are a joke and need to be destroyed.
Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents
31–40 of 77 posts
Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents
#32"This lawsuit against some of America's most innovative companies reflects an unfortunate trend of people trying to compete in the courtroom instead of the marketplace," a Google spokesman said.
I nearly choked. Are you shitting me? Marketplace doesn't allow you to "steal" others technologies. How would they feel about others infringing their search engine patents. Before anyone go wild on me, let me make it clear I am not supporting Mr. Allen or software patents or even know if there is a patent infringement here. All I am saying is if there is an infringement, I don't get this Googler.
Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents
#33my estimation of Mr. Allen has just plummeted
Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents
#34Could this be the commencement of the long feared software patent Mutually Assured Destruction?
No, because patent trolls that don't make products can't be destroyed by patents.
Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mostly agree, but patents were partly intended to protect small-fry scientists/inventors who came up with good ideas that they couldn't necessarily commercialize themselves, by providing a legal mechanism to keep manufacturers from just ripping off the idea as they shopped it around. It makes more sense when it's not a portfolio company holding hundreds of patents, though, and when the inventions are genuine breakt…
Patents are good for protecting inventions that require a large amount of capital investment to bring to production. Fashion and food were traditionally not protected by patents because to make a cake or a dress, one only needed an oven or a sowing machine. On the other hand, complicated manufactured goods needed patent protection because the factories needed to produce them would cost millions to build, and a small…
"Fashion and food were traditionally not protected by patents because to make a cake or a dress, one only needed an oven or a sowing machine. "
Is that really true? I don't know I am just asking. I personally don't think capital investment should have anything to do with the patent. It's like giving no value to the innovative technologies made by people in garage. Just doesn't make sense to me.
On a side note, do you consider time as capital investment?
Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sad to see him become a Patent troll. Yes, quite. Paul Allen had an excellent reputation up to this point. He always struck me as the one with the interesting projects, such as backing Burt Rutan. > Some of them will surely fight back. all of them will fight back.
Maybe he is trying to destroy the patent system. If you have valid patents that read on various valuable products, and you can bank roll a credible law suit asking for injunctions and not accepting any other kind of relief , that might create enough chaos to get the attention of law makers.
Whether that is his intent or not, we can hope that a consortium of the defendant/victim corporations might be able to launch some action (in-court or in-congress) to begin at last the patent-reform process.
Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents
#37This is the problem with Patent troll "portfolio companies" like his: It doesn't make anything, so there can never be a countersuit with protective patents. So, even if we had IBM step in with its portfolio of 30,000 patents (and growing by 5000 each year) and snarl up the entire industry to prove a point, Allen would be like "whatever" and soldier on, because he makes nothing.
> because he makes nothing
He does license patents, if IBM can prove one the licensed patent is based on one or more IBM patents, they could counter sue.
Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patents are good for protecting inventions that require a large amount of capital investment to bring to production. Fashion and food were traditionally not protected by patents because to make a cake or a dress, one only needed an oven or a sowing machine. On the other hand, complicated manufactured goods needed patent protection because the factories needed to produce them would cost millions to build, and a small…
"Fashion and food were traditionally not protected by patents because to make a cake or a dress, one only needed an oven or a sowing machine. " Is that really true? I don't know I am just asking. I personally don't think capital investment should have anything to do with the patent. It's like giving no value to the innovative technologies made by people in garage. Just doesn't make sense to me. On a side note, do you…
>Is that really true?
Yes. Or more precisely because clothes and food are too "utilitarian".
"Lessons from fashion's free culture"
http://ca.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion...
"Copyright law's grip on film, music and software barely touches the fashion industry ... and fashion benefits in both innovation and sales, says Johanna Blakley."
Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only one missing from that list is Microsoft, wonder why... and youtube == google.
> "The only one missing from that list is Microsoft" FTA: "Notably missing from the defendants' list are Microsoft, in which Mr. Allen remains a major investor"
That was the point.
Wonder if microsoft has a deal with Allen or if he just doesn't want to sue the company he has a stake in.
This could easily be spun as Allen as the attack dog against microsofts competition.
Re: Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fashion and food were traditionally not protected by patents because to make a cake or a dress, one only needed an oven or a sowing machine. " Is that really true? I don't know I am just asking. I personally don't think capital investment should have anything to do with the patent. It's like giving no value to the innovative technologies made by people in garage. Just doesn't make sense to me. On a side note, do you…
> Is that really true? Yes. Or more precisely because clothes and food are too "utilitarian". "Lessons from fashion's free culture" http://ca.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion... "Copyright law's grip on film, music and software barely touches the fashion industry ... and fashion benefits in both innovation and sales, says Johanna Blakley."
thanks for the link. That was very interesting. It's really amazing how the entire fashion industry even without any sort of protection is running well.