OT: What

From: Cameron Kilgore 
------------------------------------------------------
Apple hits HTC hard with a win over two
patents,
which could stop imports of HTC handsets.

One of these patents covers the very simple practice of searching a data set
for preformatted data such as a phone number, and adding interaction
to it.
Which
is an interface patent.

Talk amongst yourselves.

--Cameron 

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ This makes me want to put all IP lawyers in a boat... and sink it. -AW

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Something about not being able to compete on an open market *mumble mumble mumble* This makes me want to put all IP lawyers in a boat... and sink it. -AW On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Cameron Kilgore wrote:

=============================================================== From: Christopher Rimondi ------------------------------------------------------ Gary ReBack tells the story of when IBM suits walk into Sun's conference room saying you infringed on 7 of our patents. Sun's engineers completely rebutted their claims. Then... An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?" After a modest bit of negotiation, Sun cut IBM a check, and the blue suits went to the next company on their hit list.

=============================================================== From: Lisa Ridley ------------------------------------------------------ Did you see the patent that is about to be issued by the USPTO to an = India-based company by the name of Kootol -- it basically covers "one or = two way messaging and by subscribing to posts of other users of a = network". They patented Twitter, Facebook status updates, Google + = Stream, etc. The way the patent is written it probably covers = subscribing to a blog news feed as well. The patent was applied for in = 2006, two years after Facebook was published for public consumption, and = the same year Twitter hit the scene. I don't just blame the patent lawyers...I think the whole patent system = in the US is at fault. It's basically unchanged since it was = implemented over a century ago, and does not work at all in the = technological age. Plus I can't help but wonder who's palms are getting greased to get = these things approved. When a process has been in the public eye for a = year, it's supposed to be ineligible for patent. mumble mumble* wrote: imports of HTC handsets.

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ And I also wonder what happens when a company is awarded a patent for something that someone else has been doing well before they ever started. I think that the patent should become public domain at that point. Screw tying up all this IP in junk patents. -AW

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ I did see that... Basically the USPO is just a rubber stamp, if you have your papers in order they will sign off on the patent. Hell, they've even admitted they are overworked and can't keep up with the applications. Patents, once used to protect individuals ideas now used to make quick cash, will be the end of us. Its killing innovation and competition Did you see the patent that is about to be issued by the USPTO to an India-based company by the name of Kootol -- it basically covers "one or two way messaging and by subscribing to posts of other users of a network". They patented Twitter, Facebook status updates, Google + Stream, etc. The way the patent is written it probably covers subscribing to a blog news feed as well. The patent was applied for in 2006, two years after Facebook was published for public consumption, and the same year Twitter hit the scene. I don't just blame the patent lawyers...I think the whole patent system in the US is at fault. It's basically unchanged since it was implemented over a century ago, and does not work at all in the technological age. Plus I can't help but wonder who's palms are getting greased to get these things approved. When a process has been in the public eye for a year, it's supposed to be ineligible for patent.

=============================================================== From: Cameron Kilgore ------------------------------------------------------ There is an age on patents before they are rendered null, I don't know what that is on software/interface/mathematical and logic patents. --Cameron

=============================================================== From: Cameron Kilgore ------------------------------------------------------ The actual text for patent #1 (the one I linked to) is painfully generic: - Search/Regexp for data matching a set, such as phone numbers, addresses, emails, etc... - Assign an interface event that falls back into other parts of the OS and Application Stack Unfortunately, the scope of this applies only to the user interface. If it were to apply to providing an object that can be managed by other processes, we'd be singing a different tune. It was also registered as far back as 1996 as a desktop OS patent, so finding any prior art might be difficult. What's worse is that the ITC's discoveries are typically kept consistent as they go to trial, so there is a very strong chance HTC could be barred from import if the next round of Apple v. HTC claims go through with any big hits. --Cameron

=============================================================== From: Stephen Kraus ------------------------------------------------------ Unfortunately for expired patents, patent trolls can pick them up after they expire and can renew them indefinetly The actual text for patent #1 (the one I linked to) is painfully generic: - Search/Regexp for data matching a set, such as phone numbers, addresses, emails, etc... - Assign an interface event that falls back into other parts of the OS and Application Stack Unfortunately, the scope of this applies only to the user interface. If it were to apply to providing an object that can be managed by other processes, we'd be singing a different tune. It was also registered as far back as 1996 as a desktop OS patent, so finding any prior art might be difficult. What's worse is that the ITC's discoveries are typically kept consistent as they go to trial, so there is a very strong chance HTC could be barred from import if the next round of Apple v. HTC claims go through with any big hits. --Cameron

=============================================================== From: William Wade ------------------------------------------------------ It is not just software patents that are out of control. Copyrights on creative works are also so long that they are also stifling creativity. Congress has been upping the term since the start of the country, but it has gotten ridiculous now with 1976 and 1998 laws ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright

=============================================================== From: Lisa Ridley ------------------------------------------------------ business process patents are 20 years, I think, which are the patents = most often used for software related patents what that is on software/interface/mathematical and logic patents. wrote: something that someone else has been doing well before they ever = started. I think that the patent should become public domain at that = point. Screw tying up all this IP in junk patents. wrote: India-based company by the name of Kootol -- it basically covers "one or = two way messaging and by subscribing to posts of other users of a = network". They patented Twitter, Facebook status updates, Google + = Stream, etc. The way the patent is written it probably covers = subscribing to a blog news feed as well. The patent was applied for in = 2006, two years after Facebook was published for public consumption, and = the same year Twitter hit the scene. system in the US is at fault. It's basically unchanged since it was = implemented over a century ago, and does not work at all in the = technological age. these things approved. When a process has been in the public eye for a = year, it's supposed to be ineligible for patent. mumble mumble* wrote: wrote: imports of HTC handsets.

=============================================================== From: Rod-Lists ------------------------------------------------------ They used to call that prior art. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron welch" To: "CHUGALUG" Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:45:08 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Chugalug] OT: What And I also wonder what happens when a company is awarded a patent for something that someone else has been doing well before they ever started. I think that the patent should become public domain at that point. Screw tying up all this IP in junk patents. -AW Did you see the patent that is about to be issued by the USPTO to an India-based company by the name of Kootol -- it basically covers "one or two way messaging and by subscribing to posts of other users of a network". They patented Twitter, Facebook status updates, Google + Stream, etc. The way the patent is written it probably covers subscribing to a blog news feed as well. The patent was applied for in 2006, two years after Facebook was published for public consumption, and the same year Twitter hit the scene. I don't just blame the patent lawyers...I think the whole patent system in the US is at fault. It's basically unchanged since it was implemented over a century ago, and does not work at all in the technological age. Plus I can't help but wonder who's palms are getting greased to get these things approved. When a process has been in the public eye for a year, it's supposed to be ineligible for patent. Something about not being able to compete on an open market *mumble mumble mumble* This makes me want to put all IP lawyers in a boat... and sink it. -AW

=============================================================== From: Aaron Welch ------------------------------------------------------ This should be illegal. -AW ey expire and can renew them indefinetly : mails, etc... pplication Stack t were to apply to providing an object that can be managed by other processe= s, we'd be singing a different tune. It was also registered as far back as 1= 996 as a desktop OS patent, so finding any prior art might be difficult. s they go to trial, so there is a very strong chance HTC could be barred fro= m import if the next round of Apple v. HTC claims go through with any big hi= ts. te:

=============================================================== From: Aaron Welch ------------------------------------------------------ I understand the concept of prior art, but what I am referring to is what ha= ppens when your newly awarded patent is proven invalid BY the prior art. I b= elieve it should go to the public at that point. Personally I think softwar= e patents at this point kill competition and innovation. -AW thing that someone else has been doing well before they ever started. I thi= nk that the patent should become public domain at that point. Screw tying u= p all this IP in junk patents. -based company by the name of Kootol -- it basically covers "one or two way m= essaging and by subscribing to posts of other users of a network". They pat= ented Twitter, Facebook status updates, Google + Stream, etc. The way the p= atent is written it probably covers subscribing to a blog news feed as well.= The patent was applied for in 2006, two years after Facebook was published= for public consumption, and the same year Twitter hit the scene. the US is at fault. It's basically unchanged since it was implemented over= a century ago, and does not work at all in the technological age. hings approved. When a process has been in the public eye for a year, it's s= upposed to be ineligible for patent. mumble* wrote: s of HTC handsets.

=============================================================== From: William Wade ------------------------------------------------------ I could see perhaps a 1-2 year patent. Software moves so fast that one year would be enough to protect some let the person make some money, but let it go quickly. That way litigating is almost worthless since those cases take forever so the number of cases would drop like a rock. . y I think =C2=A0I rew two tc. =C2=A0The feed ook was e. in ted over e ear, it's le

=============================================================== From: Aaron welch ------------------------------------------------------ I would say no more than 5 years from the filing date. Also, why is it that a new car part patent is protected for 7 years, the actual design (drawing) for the part is protected under copyright essentially for 100 years, but software patents seem to never expire. -AW

=============================================================== From: Cameron Kilgore ------------------------------------------------------ I think it should work like this: Software patents of a mathematical or logical nature: 5 years, no refiling, public domain upon expiration Software patents of a interface or visual nature: No filing whatsoever permitted because of speculation of prior art and permissibly of continued innovation IP lawsuits should also incur a VAT. This alone should shut everyone the hell up. --Cameron

=============================================================== From: Dave Brockman ------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 One can only hope those days are behind us. Regards, dtb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk4kqSQACgkQABP1RO+tr2Q9ZgCgvssRlTtd9i+4Y2y1ryjFjNEy 24sAn0H95XW/gV3ZkaZSWOd8KlCNdQW7 =FkWg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

=============================================================== From: Dave Brockman ------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 20 years for general patents (way too long) and 17 years for design patents (again, way too long). About 2 years should be about the extent of anything related to technology, if that long. Regards, dtb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk4kqb8ACgkQABP1RO+tr2QXMgCgiJ/fBmLc7m9YUBKU3tIVMI3c kjoAnig6N4XPJhEv2kwTOX5xZMoSRHG/ =WbnE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

=============================================================== From: "Robert A. Kelly III" ------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1