81–90 of 133 posts
Nice of them to invalidate them - now - after they already passed them and Apple already used them in lawsuits - and won with them. But better late than never, I guess.
Companies should be securing clawbacks in patent settlements upon invalidation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
economies of countries with patent rights exceed economies without patents. And at the top is the U.S.A. with strongest patent rights.
Well if you look at regular GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nom... , China is right there at #2. They are hardly known for their strong patent enforcement. To the contrary, they're known for "lax IP" and as a place where anyone can start a factory and start making almost anything for export . They're said to be growing faster than the US too, probably in no small part because it's easier…
This logic leads to the conclusion that an ostentatious capitol building is necessary for economic prosperity, because most major economies have an ostentatious capital building. It's pure rubbish.
Try asking it to prove that the economic prosperity is caused by the patent system rather than merely correlated.
I don't even like pinch to zoom. It is hard/impossible to do when using the phone one handed. It is also annoying in apps like google's new maps for iOS because it is hard to not also rotate the map, which is hardly ever the desired outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Older Android browsers ( Google Maps for Android has something nearly identical with the +/- buttons. I've yet to find another browser that implements this behavior (Android 2.3 removed it for whatever reason). Pinch-to-zoom has always felt gimmicky in comparison. Having to use two hands is annoying.
Google Maps for iOS lets you double tap and drag up/down to zoom. It's a pretty nice implementation, just harder to discover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You obviously misunderstand patents, as they have absolutely nothing to do with how easy something is to implement. They're awarded to companies that take risks, research, and invent something new. It's a fundamental mistake to write off a "simple" invention as easy to come up with, obvious, a no-brainer, etc. Simplicity is difficult.
You're the one misunderstanding. A big company don't take any risk to file a patent, it's a few thousand of dollars and a few lawyer hours, and that's chump change for them. And that's a great sum for the small guy. That's why you see companies like IBM, Samsung, Microsft and Apple patenting the hell out of everything[1]. It's actually a great defense move (so, yeah, it's the inverse of risk) and sometimes take no re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
economies of countries with patent rights exceed economies without patents. And at the top is the U.S.A. with strongest patent rights.
Well if you look at regular GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nom... , China is right there at #2. They are hardly known for their strong patent enforcement. To the contrary, they're known for "lax IP" and as a place where anyone can start a factory and start making almost anything for export . They're said to be growing faster than the US too, probably in no small part because it's easier…
It's curious that Samsung's lawyers didn't manage to bring about the invalidation during trial, if its lack of validity was evident enough that the patent office is now retracting it. I'm curious if a) Samsung did present the evidence that the patent office relied on to invalidate but it was rejected by the jury or b) Samsung wasn't allowed to present it for some reason or c) Samsung didn't try to present it Option a…
A few points to help put this in context: 1. Technically, the USPTO hasn't yet "invalidated" the patent; it issued a first "Office action" in which it stated that all of the patents claims were unpatentable in view of varying combinations of prior-art references. 2. Institutionally the USPTO is very much aware of the significance of reexamination for a patent in litigation. 3. The Office action was signed by a "prima…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies should be securing clawbacks in patent settlements upon invalidation.
Does it work like that? If you were bootlegging during prohibition, and convicted, would your conviction be repealed afterwards? It was technically illegal at the time. Maybe someone with more knowledge of law on here knows if this is the case with patent law or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well if you look at regular GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nom... , China is right there at #2. They are hardly known for their strong patent enforcement. To the contrary, they're known for "lax IP" and as a place where anyone can start a factory and start making almost anything for export . They're said to be growing faster than the US too, probably in no small part because it's easier…
The China example is some terrible reasoning and also doesn't really play into your narrative. China is growing faster because 1) it's sacrificing lots of things Americans are too rich to be willing to sacrifice for the sake of growth; 2) it's in a much earlier phase of development and thus capturing low hanging fruit. Re: innovation, the Chinese aren't known for strong patent enforcement, but they're also not known…
Admittedly, I did not set out to make a coherent narrative. I set out to probe this troll to see if, by some wild chance, he really had any points of merit. He pulled the 'echo chamber' line and I felt obligated to reconsider my assumptions. He put forward a halfway-falsifiable hypothesis and I looked up the relevant facts on Wikipedia.
> China is growing faster because 1) it's sacrificing lots of things Americans are too rich to be willing to sacrifice for the sake of growth; 2) it's in a much earlier phase of development and thus capturing low hanging fruit.
Sure. But you don't dispute that "China is hardly known for their strong patent enforcement", right?
> Re: innovation, the Chinese aren't known for strong patent enforcement, but they're also not known for innovation either. They have lax IP enforcement because their technology sector depends on copying technology from the US.
I've heard that all before. 30+ years ago, about Japan.
> Indeed, China has been stepping up IP enforcement as of late,
of late
> which has been correlated with an increased willingness of American companies to invest in China.
Sources, please.
> As China develops, it has been hiring American legal experts to help them develop a sophisticated, American-style legal system,
Suckers! No, I seriously doubt the Chinese are going to go that route in the long term. They believe in cash, exporting, are extremely skeptical of this Western "intellectual property" BS, and show no desire to trust their business to any NIH legal system.
Sorry, the way a formerly-great company like Sony could fall in with the lawyer crowd and go from making the coolest highest-value products you could buy to being an IP-focused company suing their file-sharing customers, suing enthusiasts like Geohot, and getting pwned by Anonymous made me feel a little sorry for them.
> because that helps attract foreign investment. The facts don't fit your narrative
Again, my sole purpose here was to examine the "at the top is the U.S.A. with strongest patent rights" claim of causation.
> and indeed suggest the opposite one.
I don't see anything you've said which supports that.