- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Oracle v. Google jury foreman reveals: Oracle wasn't even close
|
|
|
Comments (139)
119 earlier comments in the full thread.
It's not just software patents, anymore.
and here's a few links with pics and reviews:
http://www.f8daily.com/Luma-Loop-Camera-Strap-Killed-Off-Aft...
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/11/15/luma-loop-camera-strap-k...
http://gizmodo.com/5707447/a-better-camera-sling-inspired-by...
http://gizmodo.com/5462836/lumaloop-camera-strap-review-slin...
Quoting: Excerpt from: An open letter to our customers, past and future
... We’ve been aware for quite some time that one of our competitors applied for a patent relating to camera slings in 2007. Their patent application contained dozens of claims that centered around two primary concepts. One of these concepts—that of using a sliding connection to connect a camera to a sling—applied to our product line. We did our research, consulted our lawyers, and found more than enough prior art related to this concept.
That prior art starts with the US 1885 Carbine Sling, which clearly features an attachment that slides along a leather strap and connects to the rifle with a hook. It goes onto Leica’s 1938 TROOV wrist strap which connects to a tripod-based connection with a hook assembly that would slide freely if not for the way that the strap was constructed. Leica went on to develop a neck strap with sliding screw mounts that seems to have first appeared in their catalog in 1969. Many other makers—especially in the specialty Leica marketplace—developed these variants further. For example, thanks to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, we know that leicagoodies.com was selling their version of this concept in 2005. One look at the photo on that page of a product made of a keyring, hook, and webbing tells the story.
In short, the idea of a sliding camera sling isn’t an amazing new invention. It’s just a really good idea that’s been around for a while and which has been iteratively developed. Neither we nor our lawyers believed that the USPTO would grant a patent for the claims related to this concept. It was a surprise, then, when our competitor was granted a patent covering the concept on November 1st, 2011. To say that we’re disappointed that the USPTO couldn’t find the prior art around the idea is an understatement...
http://luma-labs.com/blogs/news/4540122-an-open-letter-to-ou...
and here's a few links with pics and reviews:
http://www.f8daily.com/Luma-Loop-Camera-Strap-Killed-Off-Aft...
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/11/15/luma-loop-camera-strap-k...
http://gizmodo.com/5707447/a-better-camera-sling-inspired-by...
http://gizmodo.com/5462836/lumaloop-camera-strap-review-slin...
I am not arguing that the system can be fixed by throwing more money at it. I am arguing that the system MIGHT only be fixed if reasonable standards are set and enforced. If that means no software patents that do not otherwise include some physicality, then so be it. If it means no software patents, period, fine.
But, if it means more of the same lame extortion schemes, attacks on consumers and tactical business lawsuits, with the Supreme Court acting as lackeys for special interests, my vote is with radical reform, up to and including a new Constitutional Convention in the USA, if necessary,... And that might even mean violent overthrow of the government... The American Revolution was fought for little more, in terms of substantive rights.
But, if it means more of the same lame extortion schemes, attacks on consumers and tactical business lawsuits, with the Supreme Court acting as lackeys for special interests, my vote is with radical reform, up to and including a new Constitutional Convention in the USA, if necessary,... And that might even mean violent overthrow of the government... The American Revolution was fought for little more, in terms of substantive rights.
And for my final comments on this matter:
Hear, hear JaseP.........I agree with everything you said directly above. I'd go slightly further and simply say that of itself, patents should not be granted on software.
And thankyou everybody for the most enlightening and very interesting discussion which actually did evolve from the Oracle-Google fracas comment.
And BernardSwiss.....your comment almost directly above on the camera slings is "A Ripley Case" - almost unbelievable but true. To me iy's a perfect example of why the US patent system is now broken almost beyond repair. I think that the USPTO needs first to be halted in its operations, new laws on patents put in place and proper funding given to ensure proper research on prior art is given due precedence before any patent is issued. It wouldn't hurt to have the patents office linked both to Google and also to the community in general for information on prior art. It's probably done already, but my "perception" is that patents are now being dished out on absurdities and with very little prior checking.
Hear, hear JaseP.........I agree with everything you said directly above. I'd go slightly further and simply say that of itself, patents should not be granted on software.
And thankyou everybody for the most enlightening and very interesting discussion which actually did evolve from the Oracle-Google fracas comment.
And BernardSwiss.....your comment almost directly above on the camera slings is "A Ripley Case" - almost unbelievable but true. To me iy's a perfect example of why the US patent system is now broken almost beyond repair. I think that the USPTO needs first to be halted in its operations, new laws on patents put in place and proper funding given to ensure proper research on prior art is given due precedence before any patent is issued. It wouldn't hurt to have the patents office linked both to Google and also to the community in general for information on prior art. It's probably done already, but my "perception" is that patents are now being dished out on absurdities and with very little prior checking.
Well it appears there is consensus on this thread that the patent system is broken, for software, and even non-hitech as in the BernardSwiss example.
Does it translate into consensus in the iPhone-worshipping Windoze-using larger population that props up the exploiters of the current state of corruption?
No more than the limited consensus on the banking scandal led to a larger boycott/political action/uprising by the confused/distracted/powerless or prescription drug-addicted majority.
That is why I continue to believe that it will take large companies themselves to realize the folly of their ways for reform to take place.It would be nice if consumers economically supported the "good guy" companies, but as mentioned, there is not consensus in the general population on who that is,although it would be interesting if more corporate victims of unfair patent attacks informed their customers by direct mail like in the Swiss example.
But a political revolution did not solve the deep structural problems in Greece. What helped the British through the war was the common people enabled by victory gardens.Similarly for the Soviet people during their economic crisis.
Free software is like a "victory garden" to insulate me from exploitation by forces in the hitech field , my bicycle from forces in the energy field. I see community sponsored agriculture supporting local organic farms, and credit unions as an alternative to big banks. Simple things that I can control and not too complex for me to understand.
I feel a sense of commonality - and self-sufficiency - helped enable the effective collective action of the democratic pioneers. I've seen rural communities mount an effective collective resistance against powerful forces that wanted to recklessly drill for shale gas and polluting their water.
Does it translate into consensus in the iPhone-worshipping Windoze-using larger population that props up the exploiters of the current state of corruption?
No more than the limited consensus on the banking scandal led to a larger boycott/political action/uprising by the confused/distracted/powerless or prescription drug-addicted majority.
That is why I continue to believe that it will take large companies themselves to realize the folly of their ways for reform to take place.It would be nice if consumers economically supported the "good guy" companies, but as mentioned, there is not consensus in the general population on who that is,although it would be interesting if more corporate victims of unfair patent attacks informed their customers by direct mail like in the Swiss example.
But a political revolution did not solve the deep structural problems in Greece. What helped the British through the war was the common people enabled by victory gardens.Similarly for the Soviet people during their economic crisis.
Free software is like a "victory garden" to insulate me from exploitation by forces in the hitech field , my bicycle from forces in the energy field. I see community sponsored agriculture supporting local organic farms, and credit unions as an alternative to big banks. Simple things that I can control and not too complex for me to understand.
I feel a sense of commonality - and self-sufficiency - helped enable the effective collective action of the democratic pioneers. I've seen rural communities mount an effective collective resistance against powerful forces that wanted to recklessly drill for shale gas and polluting their water.
Dino,
"You could end up paying royalties on something you invented!"
That happens now. Patent makes no allowance for independent invention, so even though I came up with the same basic idea all by myself, the person who patented it gets to prevent me from using my own idea.
"You could end up paying royalties on something you invented!"
That happens now. Patent makes no allowance for independent invention, so even though I came up with the same basic idea all by myself, the person who patented it gets to prevent me from using my own idea.
It's worse than that,... You could very well be using some technology that is entirely based on expired patents (or non-patentable subject matter), but someone has managed to finagle a patent by twisting the language describing it in such a way as to fool an examiner into thinking it was unique. Then you are not only barred from using your own invention, but barred from using something like, let's say, the wheel (maybe an exaggeration on my part), because someone has managed to patent it.
I seem to recall a case where the woman who discovered/identified the "first" identified "breast-cancer genes" was sued (successfully) by the company that acquired the patents on testing for those same genes.(and was selling the test at something like a thousand dollars per).
@br --
Yup, and a big boo-hoo to you for not getting a patent and thus committing to share your invention with the world.
Yup, and a big boo-hoo to you for not getting a patent and thus committing to share your invention with the world.
@dinotrac:
That's a bit trite. What makes you think that the other party did not intend to patent it?
You have to do *some* work before you have something that can be patented. In many cases in history (moving image photography is a key example) many inventors are on the verge of having something ready to patent. In all those cases bar one, they are wasting their time.
That's a bit trite. What makes you think that the other party did not intend to patent it?
You have to do *some* work before you have something that can be patented. In many cases in history (moving image photography is a key example) many inventors are on the verge of having something ready to patent. In all those cases bar one, they are wasting their time.
@skelband --
It's not unique to patents, though.
You have to do some work to make a sale, then the prospect goes with something else. You have to run a campaign to win (or lose) an election. You have to expend time and money to win (or lose) a court case.
And don't get me started on race horses and basketball franchises.
It's not unique to patents, though.
You have to do some work to make a sale, then the prospect goes with something else. You have to run a campaign to win (or lose) an election. You have to expend time and money to win (or lose) a court case.
And don't get me started on race horses and basketball franchises.
@JaseP -
Yes. Patent examiners are people, too.
If we limited human activities to those in which there were no possibility of mistake, there would be no human activities.
Yes. Patent examiners are people, too.
If we limited human activities to those in which there were no possibility of mistake, there would be no human activities.
@Dino:
You're applying boolean logic to a problem that requires pragmatism. I never said we should limit the system to one that does not permit mistakes,... I just pointed out the mistakes in the system are big enough to sail an aircraft carrier battle group through. Mistakes can and will happen,... but we don't have to live with a system where the mistakes are the rule rather than the exception. The patent system is that kind of mistake, now. It worked better when everyone assumed software couldn't be patented.
You're applying boolean logic to a problem that requires pragmatism. I never said we should limit the system to one that does not permit mistakes,... I just pointed out the mistakes in the system are big enough to sail an aircraft carrier battle group through. Mistakes can and will happen,... but we don't have to live with a system where the mistakes are the rule rather than the exception. The patent system is that kind of mistake, now. It worked better when everyone assumed software couldn't be patented.
@JaseP
And you, my friend, are making a stipulation big enough to support the navy that battle group is attached to.
When (outside of software) did mistakes become the rule rather than the exception?
In the realm of software patents, mistakes are indeed the rule for a variety of reasons. That needs to be fixed or eliminated.
And you, my friend, are making a stipulation big enough to support the navy that battle group is attached to.
When (outside of software) did mistakes become the rule rather than the exception?
In the realm of software patents, mistakes are indeed the rule for a variety of reasons. That needs to be fixed or eliminated.
@dinotrac: "It's not unique to patents, though."
I'll give you that as far as it goes.
There are two problems with that analogy though:
1) With patents, it's an all or nothing thing. Firstly, we are only really concerned with business here so the sale example is only really relevant. With patents, it's like there is only one customer. You either win them, or you fail for (practically) forever. For the political example, there again, this is more akin to the patent situation. There is one artificial winner, everyone else loses. In business, there can be many winners. In sales you are not usually typically trying to sell to one customer. That would be a pretty awful business strategy anyway.
2) Again with the sales example, the winner of that particular deal wins for a variety of reasons, and (although it doesn't always work that way) the winner is largely chosen on merit. The patent system bestows the winner largely on chronological chance. This is antithetical to a free market where the winner should be the best fit to survive.
I'll give you that as far as it goes.
There are two problems with that analogy though:
1) With patents, it's an all or nothing thing. Firstly, we are only really concerned with business here so the sale example is only really relevant. With patents, it's like there is only one customer. You either win them, or you fail for (practically) forever. For the political example, there again, this is more akin to the patent situation. There is one artificial winner, everyone else loses. In business, there can be many winners. In sales you are not usually typically trying to sell to one customer. That would be a pretty awful business strategy anyway.
2) Again with the sales example, the winner of that particular deal wins for a variety of reasons, and (although it doesn't always work that way) the winner is largely chosen on merit. The patent system bestows the winner largely on chronological chance. This is antithetical to a free market where the winner should be the best fit to survive.
@skelband -
1. No. You move onto something else, perhaps inventing around the patent that's in your way. It's not all touchy-feely win-win, but it is how things are done and it's not exactly unknown. Human society is full of competition. Look at the bright side: at least it's not a shooting war.
2. "Largely on chronological chance?"
That happens in sales, too, you know. That's what the whole "first to market" thing is all about.
But...chronology and merit are not at odds with each other. If two inventors succeed in creating exactly the same invention, what's wrong with chronology as a decider? Both inventors have merit because both succeeded in making it work. There will be one meritorious loser either way.
1. No. You move onto something else, perhaps inventing around the patent that's in your way. It's not all touchy-feely win-win, but it is how things are done and it's not exactly unknown. Human society is full of competition. Look at the bright side: at least it's not a shooting war.
2. "Largely on chronological chance?"
That happens in sales, too, you know. That's what the whole "first to market" thing is all about.
But...chronology and merit are not at odds with each other. If two inventors succeed in creating exactly the same invention, what's wrong with chronology as a decider? Both inventors have merit because both succeeded in making it work. There will be one meritorious loser either way.
@dinotrac: "But...chronology and merit are not at odds with each other."
In most cases they are. Markets change and so do products. Many products that contain an innovation can be truly awful on their first cut. The business or inventor that comes up with the idea might not necessarily be the best person to implement or develop it.
The market would usually determine who that was, but the technology might languish in obscurity until the patent expires, at which point it develops apace. Again the Watt steam example is key here. Few would suggest I think that Watt wasn't a great inventor, but the industry languished in stagnation until others better able to develop the technology were allowed to get at it. There thus followed an explosion of advancement.
I can see the need for something like patents, but they seem a very crude and inefficient method of achieving advancement for the public good and often fail to even achieve that.
Perhaps th only issue is really the balance not achieved by such a long patent period. Perhaps 5 years would be more equitable, yet I can see situations, such as in the computing industry, where even that would might be way too long to see the technology developed at the optimum rate.
In most cases they are. Markets change and so do products. Many products that contain an innovation can be truly awful on their first cut. The business or inventor that comes up with the idea might not necessarily be the best person to implement or develop it.
The market would usually determine who that was, but the technology might languish in obscurity until the patent expires, at which point it develops apace. Again the Watt steam example is key here. Few would suggest I think that Watt wasn't a great inventor, but the industry languished in stagnation until others better able to develop the technology were allowed to get at it. There thus followed an explosion of advancement.
I can see the need for something like patents, but they seem a very crude and inefficient method of achieving advancement for the public good and often fail to even achieve that.
Perhaps th only issue is really the balance not achieved by such a long patent period. Perhaps 5 years would be more equitable, yet I can see situations, such as in the computing industry, where even that would might be way too long to see the technology developed at the optimum rate.
Quoting: But...chronology and merit are not at odds with each other. If two inventors succeed in creating exactly the same invention, what's wrong with chronology as a decider? Both inventors have merit because both succeeded in making it work. There will be one meritorious loser either way.
Well, the first thing that springs to mind is that if you have competing patents being submitted so closely together, then perhaps it's not so novel, or at least fairly obvious to those "skilled in the art", and in either case not the kind of thing that is supposed to be patentable in the first place?
@BernardSwiss:
That's an angle that I didn't think of.
That's an angle that I didn't think of.
@BernardSwiss --
And that sometimes happens.
And that sometimes happens.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Patents do, however, provide a number of incentives to patent your innovations, one of which is that you could lose your own invention if somebody else comes up with it and then patents it while you are sitting on it.
You could end up paying royalties on something you invented!