31–40 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering the insane hours legal associates have to work for several years for the do-or-die chance at making partner, I wouldn't begrudge them that salary.
Can't they just hire two people for half the price and make them work normal hours?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need to link to wikipedia articles on the web, I've been using it since you were probably still in elementary school. RPC was around well before the web, as well as client-server programs. For the record, you don't need a Windows browser in order to invalidate the patent. If there are any X client-server apps that read instructions from a central server and displayed that information on its own client-side app, th…
This patent covers program objects embedded in HTML displayed in a browser. Client-server programs and X desktop apps would not be prior art for these claims. That's why they're suing Internet companies, not software companies. Prior art would have to be something interactive that ran within a browser before the 1993 filing date. Lots of interactive network applications existed before then, but that's not what the pa…
Linking to a history of the World Wide Web on Wikipedia, on a post on Hacker News - how does that come across? It's pretty obnoxious.
The real issue here is the hegemony that gives a single coalition governments the ability dictate worldwide patent and copyright law. It seems that if that didn't exist, people interested in innovating and creating great, new, things would just go to the countries that didn't have forcefully draconian IP laws. Sure, maybe there are some advantages to having patents, but in their current form for software, they are a…
The real issue here is the hegemony that gives a single coalition governments the ability dictate worldwide patent and copyright law. It seems that if that didn't exist, people interested in innovating and creating great, new, things would just go to the countries that didn't have forcefully draconian IP laws. Sure, maybe there are some advantages to having patents, but in their current form for software, they are a…
It doesn't matter where things are created; if they infringe US patents they can't be sold in the US. Most companies can't afford to ignore that market.
As long as they target other software patent trolls like Microsoft and Apple I'd be perfectly fine with it. They could become the batman of the patent world.
They've also successfully fought against Android and are now exacting stiff taxes on a lot of the Android devices sold because of the "technology" that's being used.
Apple's litigation has recently centred around design patents, not software patents, presumably to push Samsung into making their own designs and not just copying everyone Apple like they used to copy RIM.
Apple surely has an enormous stockpile of software patents, but their lawsuit activity has been pretty limited. I hear lots of bitching about people not getting into the App Store, but not much a thing about individuals being sued by Apple over software patents.
Apple's royalty payments seem restricted to those regarding specifically negotiated rights such as for the enormous multitude of officially licensed iPod/iPad/iPhone accessories. You can hardly fault them for this when the accessory market is so profitable for the companies involved in it.
If Apple stopped making iPods the market would dry up, but conversely, Microsoft's "technology" has no bearing on the success or failure of things like Android.
For that and other reasons, I don't think Doyle can properly be called a patent troll, if such is someone who sits on a patent until it becomes valuable and then springs out of nowhere to demand a cut of profitable businesses.
Doyle came out with his product before the patent actually issued, and offered the patent for license to the big players. They turned him down, then cried foul when he sued them for violating his patent. I don't think they can realistically claim to have been ambushed or trolled.
Reform of patent law may be a legitimate topic for debate, but Doyle played by the rules as he found them. He was up front and public about what he was doing the whole time. Every mortal effort and every conceivable argument have been made by the bigs to take him down, but the patent stands. Like everyone else, he deserves at least to have the truth spoken about him.
The web is not some inalienable right handed down from God for the betterment of humanity. It's a clever idea that lots of people find handy. Kleenex and eyeglasses are clever, too. I don't see a movement to free tissue paper.
Why is anyone shocked by the prospect that it may come at a cost, directly or indirectly?
Life's too short, and too beautifully wonderous, to waste fretting about who's greed is good and who's is bad or unfair. Drama, drama.
The article contains at least one factual error. It states that Eolas never released a web browser of its own; in fact it did release one called WebRouser in 1995 (three years before the patent actually issued). For that and other reasons, I don't think Doyle can properly be called a patent troll, if such is someone who sits on a patent until it becomes valuable and then springs out of nowhere to demand a cut of prof…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering the insane hours legal associates have to work for several years for the do-or-die chance at making partner, I wouldn't begrudge them that salary.
Can't they just hire two people for half the price and make them work normal hours?
I just love this. Lots of dick-swinging and heart-bleeding and whining and greed. There is no right side in this. Everyone just wants their way. The web is not some inalienable right handed down from God for the betterment of humanity. It's a clever idea that lots of people find handy. Kleenex and eyeglasses are clever, too. I don't see a movement to free tissue paper. Why is anyone shocked by the prospect that it ma…