- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Patent troll takes last shot at owning - interactive web - but falls short
|
|
|
Comments (8)
One of the news bites on Groklaw recently had a comment that I think was an analysis from a USA judge (sorry cannot provide url.). In essence, the writer stated that any company suing over a patent MUST, in order to assert the patent, be the commercial producer of the device/item/etc. on which the patent is based. Simple and very, very effective I think.
I doubt it would be effective. It would take just a little programming, and a "product" that no one would buy or even need to know about. It wouldn't even need to work.
To me, the issue is patenting software at its root. So long as that exists, there will be abuse.
To me, the issue is patenting software at its root. So long as that exists, there will be abuse.
I concur with Bob...
The real hit, Bob and JaseP, is in the word "commercial". I read that as a company that makes a considerable income and profit from the patented item. But ultimately, I agree: patents on software should be stopped completely.
Ridcully: a competing product which infringes on the patent could prevent the patent owner from making a profit on their own. So the requirement of a profit could hurt patent holders with a legitimate product.
@mortenalver.....I agree, I agree, I agree......I cannot seem to get across the exact meaning I wish in the words I use. What I am trying to suggest is that a person/entity/company/whatever/holder of the patent should only be permitted to begin court proceedings against another supposedly infringing person/entity/company/whatever, if and only if the holder of the patent is in serious commercial production (with investments leading to an intended profit which is, after all, the aim of any commercial operation) based on the patent as part of the production device, whatever it happens to be.
In other words, it is then obvious that the infringing company could by its actions, hurt the patent owning company and by competition using the patent, destroy the patent owning company's profits which of course, is the import, I think, of your second sentence above. That's when legal action should begin. On the other hand, a troll company never goes into serious commercial investment and production leading to a profit on patents they hold. If the above ideas are held seriously in law, it becomes impossible, I think, for a troll company to exert a patent. Only the commercial production company can take action.
That's still not quite right, but it's the best I can do. There are times one gets very frustrated with English. In any event, as I said above, I am totally against patents being awarded on software.....it's rather like being able to patent words and phrases in a person's language or the use of certain numbers or operations in mathematics.
In other words, it is then obvious that the infringing company could by its actions, hurt the patent owning company and by competition using the patent, destroy the patent owning company's profits which of course, is the import, I think, of your second sentence above. That's when legal action should begin. On the other hand, a troll company never goes into serious commercial investment and production leading to a profit on patents they hold. If the above ideas are held seriously in law, it becomes impossible, I think, for a troll company to exert a patent. Only the commercial production company can take action.
That's still not quite right, but it's the best I can do. There are times one gets very frustrated with English. In any event, as I said above, I am totally against patents being awarded on software.....it's rather like being able to patent words and phrases in a person's language or the use of certain numbers or operations in mathematics.
Sounds to me like a way for the old boys to wield the system against precisely the inventors that the patent system is supposed to protect. In other words, this assumes that all legitimate patent-holders are large corporations. If I came up with a brilliant idea, something new or just a significant improvement, and Apple or Microsoft or Sony (or DuPont or General Motors or Boeing) used it, I would be forced to accept whatever terms they deigned to grant, because I wouldn't have standing to sue.
@BernardSwiss....and again, I'd agree, sort of. The small backyard person who comes across something really fantastic, in general, simply does not have the resources to produce and market his/her discovery. Nor is everybody an entrepreneur - I know I am not. So the first port of call is to head where the backup and the money is......and that in turn means he/she has to call on the big boys and see if there is interest. They'll at least get a percentage, but without that sort of assistance, they'd get nothing. You can call it the "old boys" if you like, but the pragmatic person has to swallow their pride and get what they can......it may be wrong, but it's the real world I am afraid.
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