- Kevin Noonan at PatentDocs reviews the recent Special 301 report by the U.S. Trade Representative focusing on the protection and enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. "The Priority Watch List in the Report lists Algeria, Argentina, Chile, Chine, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia, Thailand, and Venezuela."
- Eric Goldman review's Vermont's "First Anti-Patent Trolling Law." Prof. Goldman highlights a key problem for all nuanced anti-abusive-litigation statutes. He writes: "I'm skeptical of this attempt to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate patent assertions."
- Michael C. Smith writes on a recent court ruling that allows expert testimony that applies the "entire market value rule" in calculating damages.
- Bill Vobach highlights the fact that Raymond Chen's nomination to the Federal Circuit has been voted out of the Judiciary Committee and now moves to the full Senate for Consideration.
- The ELS Blog calls for papers on Trademark Data.
- Job: Berkeley needs a new Associate Director of its IP Law Clinic [Link]
Upcoming Events:
- IP Strategy Summit: Silicon Valley on June 19th & June 20th at the Four Seasons in Palo Alto
- Chisum Patent Academy (Featuring Professors Don Chisum and Janice Mueller). July 31 – August 2, 2013 in Seattle.
Jobs:
- Patent Prosecution in Portland with Marger Johnson McCollom
- Patent Agent in Carlsbad California with ViaSat
- Practice Patent Law in NC Research Triangle with Smith & Hopen
- Patent Attorney in Tysons Corner, Virginia with Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole
- Bring your Patent Business to Morristown NJ with Pergament Gilman & Cepeda LLP
- Patent Prosecution in West Palm Beach with Akerman Senterfitt
Not sure what, if anything at all, military computer ventilation terms have to do with this thread…
Sort of like your 1ies, (well with the major exception in that I have actually documented your 1ies whereas you have never done so with the purported ‘1ies’ that you claim I have told).
But hey Malcolm, your accuse-others-of-what-you-do/are is r@ging at an all time high.
Attaboy.
Just [shrug] and stand by, like you have done every time I explained your lack of blogging quality characteristics. Maybe insult some cancer survivor, dead president or greving son, you know, just for jakes. Don’t forget to misrepresent some facts, law or what others post in order to further your agendas, that’s always a chuckle.
It’s interesting that the more substance one of your interlocutors brings to the table, the more insulting and foul-mouthed you get. What’s up with that?
He’s a s0ci0path with path0logical l i a r tendencies.
Eventually Dennis will figure this out but I’m not holding my breath anymore.
LOL – and as I refresh from my post, your post appears.
Further, “nontransitory” is a meaningless word without context (and even then, is often more meaningless than not with context).
For example, there are signals (like Nuitjen’s) that are more “nontransitory” than any of the office equipment that you may have around you. The signals beamed into space will be such (and look up into the night sky on a clear night to see such evidence from nature coming to you).
Either way – and this is important – transitory or not, the computer is transformed. You need to (finally) accept this HOLDING from Alappat.
Ned,
Your post has not made it to the board (yet), but I did notice it on your email list.
We’ve covered the concept previously (think about the copyright connotation and the requirement – for that protection – for software to be fixed in a tangible medium).
Software resides at some point, somewhere in the form that you would find acceptable. It has to, to exist at all. Why you have never understood this is quite beyond me. No magic wands allowed.
Are you suggesting that I must add “non transitory” again after “new?”
I thought that was understood.
But, if you would concede the point that the programming has to be non transitory, I think you and I will agree that the computer is transformed.
Ned,
Did you read past the words article of manufacture?
And notice an important word (I have highlighted it for you): ‘and.’
anon, did you read past the words “non transitory?”
More shiny hat stuff…
A time is coming:
link to gma.yahoo.com
..hmmm, or is the time already here, just cloaked?
Another ‘straw’ for the back of the shiney hat camel:
link to alm.com
Guess who is at Stanford and benefits from Big Data…
“in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle”
Interestingly, software fits your definition.
It is an article of manufacture, and transforms a machine into a new physical state or thing.
Thanks Ned !
LB, of course one of the essential Supreme Court cases that brought us the doctrine of unclean hands in connection with patents involved the suppression of prior art that was a form of public use prior art.
If the prior art is of the printed publication variety, it would be a waste of everybody’s time to assert the patent given that the prior art would soon be discovered and the patent would be thrown back into the patent office in a reexamination. But I don’t think that it would be unclean hands to continue to assert the patent given that the public has a remedy in the evidence is easily found.
Unclean hands comes into play under the circumstances where the prior art is of the public use variety and the patent owner or its attorneys take some positive action to suppress that evidence as in the Supreme Court cases. That is unclean hands. But also be acting in bad faith.
“Technological:” Physical subject matter that is a non transitory machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or that transforms any of these into a new physical, state or thing.
The second time you make that claim, Leopold, and just like before, you are wrong.
You have provided no substantive points here. I have gone out and found and supplied the cases and the Vermont law.
All you have done is played your passive/aggressive dumb_@$$ d1ck role, and played it to the hilt.
That’s not something to be proud of son.
It’s interesting that the more substance one of your interlocutors brings to the table, the more insulting and foul-mouthed you get. What’s up with that?
Move the goalposts back.
Read the previous posts (I am not asking yet again when the questions are above)
There is no ‘mystery’ two others – those are in the case that you also read.
Lastly, stop being a d1ck.
Somehow, you seem to be having difficulty with “Last I checked, resolving patent infringement claims ” and my comments on this very subject from yesterday.
You’re absolutely correct, I have difficulty with weird comments that don’t appear to actually say anything, as well as with comments that do so through an incorporation by reference of unspecified previous comments. But OK, let’s go back to the referenced comment:
Last I checked, resolving patent infringement claims definitely falls into the things I flagged above (the things Leopold threw a conniption over).
Best I can tell, you seem to be concerned that Vermont wants to “resolve” patent infringement claims. However, that’s not what the statute’s statement of purpose says. It says that the legislature wants to facilitate efficient and prompt resolution of claims. As I said earlier, the statute, which is directed solely to business conduct undertaken in bad faith, seems a reasonable way to do that, in a way that is complementary to the federal scheme. So, where exactly is the conflict? You keep saying (or suggesting, rather) that there is one, but you’ve never identified a single way in which the Vermont statute conflicts with the purposes and objectives of the federal patent law. You’ve also cited Federal case law that strongly suggests that it doesn’t, notwithstanding your mysterious references to the “two other areas” in that case. So again, where is the conflict that triggers preemption?
You also rather miss the fact that preemption will occur if a state makes the bringing of a patent suit (or related action) more onerous than what the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide.
I’ve actually pointed out several times that this statute has NO effect on your ability to bring a patent suit. None. Would you care to explain why I’m wrong?
LOL – that was a typo for ‘chief.’
Malcolm has the corner on eplectic. You would need to talk with him about that. You might offer him a Calvinball face sp1ke or two.
You cannot be anthropomorphicating, as machines are nowhere in the sight of the conversation. But you have not commented on whether you think that machines think. Ned’s silence screams, while Malcolm actually does think that machines think.
Shiny Hat stuff:
link to news.yahoo.com
link to news.yahoo.com
relevancy? hmmm, Attacks from the Left and the Right.
“when the defendant has probably never seen the patent before.”
Pretty sure that that point is, well, pointless.
“you are intentionally trying to provoke me”
Bingo.
IANAE: it’s the disclosure–for goodness sake. I feel sorry for you at this point.
IANAE: have you actually been a lawsuit before? It doesn’t sound like it.
once something has been done that there is almost a mystery force that makes it easier for the next person.
You must be a great interference lawyer. All you have to do is see which inventor had an easier time of it, and the other guy gets the patent.
Mystery force? Boy oh boy.
And, the concept that disclosure of the earlier invention may have lead the defendant to their invention. (which is a complicated topic that I am sure is way above your head.)
No, it’s a perfectly simple concept. It’s also perfectly irrelevant to whether the defendant has to pay the plaintiff.
It’s also a difficult and fact-sensitive argument to make when the defendant has probably never seen the patent before.
I’m trying to figure out why you want to make a difficult argument when there’s a perfectly simple one that they teach in the first year of law school – this is one of those situations where intent is irrelevant. If you practice the claim, you infringe. You do admit that’s the controlling law, don’t you?
I’m trying to help you here.
Another thing too, IANAE, you appear not to understand the importance of disclosure. You seem to fail to understand what every diligent person trained in science knows—guess what that is boy—well, boy that is that once something has been done that there is almost a mystery force that makes it easier for the next person. It is very, very odd. But, boy, boy, boy, if you had an education and the raw talent to you would know that.
(I can’t wait for your lame nonsense of trying to ridicule this post and then —boy—me telling you all the great scientist in the history of the world having said essentially the same thing. —boy–)
you should appreciate a call for client education. […] client education would only help the situation and help to clarify the issues.
I do, and it would. Which is why I don’t want you doing it.
And, IANAE, if all you say is true, then you should appreciate a call for client education. Even if all the other problems are true that you claim, client education would only help the situation and help to clarify the issues.
IANAE: You never cease to amaze me at your inability to understand simple arguments.
Please tell me how in the world you got from my post that I think derivation is element of infringement? I was obviously referring to the concept of whether or not the defendant felt that maybe their was some merit in the plaintiff’s argument. That maybe the defendant felt like well, gee, they did do it before us so maybe they do deserve something. And, the concept that disclosure of the earlier invention may have lead the defendant to their invention. (which is a complicated topic that I am sure is way above your head.)
IANAE either you are a dolt or you are intentionally trying to provoke me.
I suspect the former. So, please do not respond to my post without reading it at least 10 times and bringing it to a real attorney that can help you understand it.
I’d rather be chied than eplectic. But I could just be anthropomorphicating.
That’s just you still being a d1ck.
OK fine? LOL.
“all the victims’ fault”
Chapter 1 Verse 2 from the Infringer’s Bible, championed by chied infringers’ right’s advocate INANE.
Go figure.
“Client education” is the first casuality in the war against patents. I think you called this blackhearted demagoguery “appeals to the ignorant.”
A lot of this can be solved with client education.
Your refreshing brand of “client education” is always appreciated. Great to hear an unbiased opinion about how this is all the victims’ fault, from someone who is admittedly in the business of acquiring and asserting patents in an area of steadily increasing court-imposed dubiousness.
But that’s not even what I was taking issue with. You seem to think that derivation is an element of infringement, which is a pretty clear indication that you don’t know the first thing about patent law either. Or about being persuasive, since it’s a way stronger argument to say “derivation is irrelevant” than to try to convince people they must have accidentally copied something they’ve never seen before.
Maybe you’re bracing yourself for a future career in copyright when that’s all you’ll be able to get for most software, in which case I think that’s a wise decision.
NWPA,
You mean, that people should just understand the law and stop spinning things that they are ‘broke?’
Sorry, you kind of miss the fact that this is a deliberate tactic. Agaiin, think about who coined the perjorative “Troll” in the first place and why.
The plain fact is that the patent system is under attack. The whole ‘Troll’ bit is just another gambit in this attack.
LOL – a pattern alright – you feigning ignorance, and then projecting.
Somehow, you seem to be having difficulty with “Last I checked, resolving patent infringement claims ” and my comments on this very subject from yesterday.
This purposeful stup1d1ty is just you being a d1ck.
Statement of purpose very much implicates preemption, by the way; or is that another concept that is just too difficult for you and that you will want to b1ame someone else for being ‘unclear?’
You also rather miss the fact that preemption will occur if a state makes the bringing of a patent suit (or related action) more onerous than what the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide.
What you consider ‘pretty reasonable’ simply has the legal problems that you simply want to close your eyes to.
It sounds like IANAE that you are agreeing that huge part of the problem is the defendants’ attorneys, who exploit the perception that the system is broken and it is going to cost you a lot of money, and let’s go to court to stop these bad actors.
A lot of this can be solved with client education.
No, actually it did not. You missed the counter point that you only covered one of three items and did not establish your position. (post at 8:04 PM)
OK, fine. You win, on that decisive counter point. The VT statute is preempted, for all of the reasons that you haven’t stated but that I have not covered.
Translation: why bother with law? Just get rid of patents altogether.
The patient is dead, but is no longer sick.
D’Oh! (said in the best Homer Simpson tones)
“Since the case law you provides suggests pretty clearly that the statute is not preempted”
No, actually it did not. You missed the counter point that you only covered one of three items and did not establish your position. (post at 8:04 PM)
Bloat? perhaps. I note that it is either bloat or preemption. Plus I note other problems with the law (someone did NOT do their homework). In any event, the law is unnecessary. So it is not “the case” – there still is the preemption factor, and your feigned confusion still paints you as being a d1ck. Just like you were on the Monsanto thread (there too, you were wrong, but the ‘anon said’ factor got in your way).
As I already mentioned today, you need to read the rest of my comments.
C’mon Leopold, do NWPA a favor and streamline this, OK? Read. Think. then respond.
A lot of defendants that don’t appreciate the patent system
Who can blame small business owners for not understanding the patent system, when even “patent attorneys” think this kind of thing is legally relevant:
But, you see defendants eventhough their product is just like the one described in the patent years before somehow believe that they independently came up with the invention. And that the disclosure of the invention had nothing to do with them having their idea of the invention.
Where are they supposed to get sound legal advice? Other than “pay up, because you’re being sued and it’s gonna get expensive, and let’s face it, you probably accidentally stole the idea from my client anyway, even if you have no idea how or when that might have happened. It’s for your own good.”
And, you know, another aspect of this too, that I have personally seen is that the defendant often thinks the plaintiff is just troll that deserves nothing. When in reality, the patent isn’t great, but they did do what the defendant did before the defendant. In other words, maybe it is invalid or unenforceable, and maybe you don’t infringe, but they have a decent argument. And the defendant just digs in and won’t negotiate despite the fact that they could settle for say $500K, and the legal bill to fight is going to be $3 million.
Again, I think this is bad lawyering. The lawyer should bring the defendant off the cliff and talk them into settling. But, it is against the interest of the defendant’s lawyer (not his clients though.)
I think this is another huge part of what is going on. A lot of defendants that don’t appreciate the patent system and don’t realize that, well, guess what, maybe you product was derived from their ideas and you just don’t know it. And, guess what, they want some money but it isn’t that much and it isn’t that unreasonable for them to be asking for a bit money.
But, you see defendants eventhough their product is just like the one described in the patent years before somehow believe that they independently came up with the invention. And that the disclosure of the invention had nothing to do with them having their idea of the invention.
You know—be real people—a lot of the problem is the defendants being unreasonable and the defendants’ layers stoking the flames.
You quite missed the point of my posts. The patent side is either superfluous or prempted, there are other existing laws that cover tortious interference.
Apparently I did. Since the case law you provides suggests pretty clearly that the statute is not preempted, it now appears that your sole concern is that the Vermont legislature is unnecessarily adding bloat to their laws, by codifying a specific form of tortious interference. Is that right?
If that’s the case, though, I’m still a little confused about why you went on and on with your questions about whether bad faith “involved” questions of non-infringement or invalidity.
As to the Vermont law, try reading it (like you said you have), and note the specific comments I have posted on this thread including the one to Paul.
They’ve been noted. You made some vague suggestion to Paul that you detect some kind of problem with section 4195(b) of the Vermont statute, although you weren’t at all clear what that problem is. (This seems to be a pattern…)
Anyway, this section, which is nothing more than a statement of purpose, says that the Vermont legislature wants to “facilitate the efficient and prompt resolution of patent infringement claims.” That sounds like an admirable goal. A statute that encourages patentees to be more explicit and clearer in their demand letters, while discouraging the sending of demand letters in bad faith, seems like a pretty reasonable way of complementing the federal patent statutes.
NWPA,
I notice two good posts by you on this topic on the other blog.
Nice job.
You quite missed the point of my posts. The patent side is either superfluous or prempted, there are other existing laws that cover tortious interference. I am NOT surprised tha tyou are having such a difficult time with this, after all, the red cape is there.
Obtuse. Is it on purpose?
(said in the best Andy Dufresne tones)
Do any of you ever think about maybe the problem is the abuse of the defendant’s lawyers? Maybe the defendant’s lawyers (and the clients) should be trained to make it so that it is at least as expensive to assert the patent as it is to defend against infringement when the patent is invalid or not infringed?
I mean seriously. LB gave a hypo that no one objected to of a simple letter with a naked assertion of infringement and the defendant went off and spent 10’s of thousands of dollars.
Get a grip. Keep your attorney in check. I think a lot of the problem could be solved with training clients on how to deal with trolls by keeping attorney costs low. If they make it so the covered business method patent review is applicable to all patents, then you could delay for years action. There are lots of ways of fighting without dropping big bucks.
Make them do the claim chart. Make some simple assertions of invalidity. Make simple assertions from the client of non-infringement. Make them do the work.
The point Leopold, is that the law is either superfluous or preempted.
Ratchet up the foul language? Not at all, just calling it as I see it – you are being a d1ck about your announcement and playing the f001 instead of addressing the points. You responded to Ned pedantically when the meaning of his post was quite clear. Hiding behind formal language on a blog is being a d1ck, plain and simple.
As to the Vermont law, try reading it (like you said you have), and note the specific comments I have posted on this thread including the one to Paul.
Get your head out of your @_$$ and stop being obstinate.
What about suing a patent owner for exercising a statutory rights to notify possible infringers of their possible infringement?
What about it? You’ve already provided the answer yourself, with the case you cited the other day. The Federal Circuit has already suggested pretty clearly that federal law does not preempt state actions that are targeted to conduct taken in bad faith.
So what’s your point?
And the question after that would be – what exactly does this Vermont law provide that cannot be handled by the courts already?
I explained this for you about two weeks ago, anon. The Vermont law provides a remedy for targets of harassment who have not been sued in federal court. I’m surprised that you’re having such a difficult time with this.
LOL – I like how you critize Ned for ‘sneaking’ the word valid into a post, while you sneak in the word ‘infringer.’
That’s even more brazen than usual, anon. My comment was in direct response to Ned’s:
If they can sue the patent owner even while continuing to infringe, I think there just might be a problem.
You’ve really ratcheted up the personal insults and the foul language in the last few days. Problems at work?
That option was presented to Malcolm long ago when I discussed blog quality.
The move is still in his court.
“Got a cite for that?”
LOL – nice spin as the part of my post that you are misrepresenting was to void for vagueness rather than preemption.
But for that, I have plenty of cites. Let’s start with the fifth amendment.
MM and anon, you two are making it almost impossible to have discussions in these threads. Can’t you two somehow be more concise?
How dare anyone assert patents? Why, that’s like trying to make money or something.
What would Jane say?
Toasted marshmallows – off of your admission-fired agendas.
Mmmmm.
Mothers, lock up your 12 year old Chinese boys (for their protection).
Don’t you have any 12 year old Chinese boys to tr011?
The adults are trying to have a conversation.
You really need to get into a line of work you can believe in, Malcolm.
This cognitive dissonance cannot be healthy for you.
The parade of horribles is easily dispatched by any competent counsel. For all else, see Chief Judge Rader’s suggestions (which ‘shockingly’ mirror my own).
Long ago, most of us identified the source of the problem: The Federal Circuit and the USPTO: allowing claims to business methods and the like, allowing claims to old techniques using modern systems without technological change, allowing claims that are wholly functional at the point of novelty, or that use terms and language that are boderline incomprehensible.
Who in the h is “us”? The tireless defenders of patent trolling (e.g., the self-interested d-psh-ts who troll this blog with their fantasies about “leftist academics” etc) don’t consider any of those items to be the “source of the problem”. On the contrary, Ned, the “source of the problem” from the perspective of patent trolls is people like you who propose doing anything that would impact their ability to make money off the Patent Casino.
Wake the f— up.
Paul,
You are absolutely correct and perfectly reasonable.
However, the bill might also have problems with 4195(b), specifically “facilitate the efficient and prompt resolution of patent infringement claims…“, which does seem to contradict Leopold’s assertions. Last I checked, resolving patent infringement claims definitely falls into the things I flagged above (the things Leopold threw a conniption over).
Spammy McFilter: If you cannot tell me what a bad faith assertion is
LOL. The “convincing Spammy McFilter test” for pre-emption. Got a cite for that?
Ned: Not investigating? How much does one really need to do if the accused is doing X
How much “investigation” do you need to do if the accused isn’t doing X but you still want to sue them to see if they’ll give you some money?
How much “investigation” do you need to do if it’s impossible for your patent to be valid and still be infringed by every recipient of your lawsuit threat?
How much “investigation” is needed if some superskummy patent attorneys like the cretins that “anon” hangs around with buy 500 or a 1000 patents and then send a threatening letter to, say, 100,000 or 500,000 different businesses around the country alerting them to the “belief” that they are infringing one of their patents (bear in mind that these skumbags “believe” some of their patent claims are “fundamental” “technology” and justifiably broad) and suggesting that the letter recipient simply “take a license” like “many others” have done?
You do see where these skumbag trolls wants to take this, don’t you?
As to your comment 1), look at 4197(c)(6)(B).
While technically this is not ‘needed proof,’ the lack of anything resembling a ‘needed proof’ throughout the bill is problematic. You have a bill with mere factors (including omnibus ‘any other factor’ sections for a court to determine whether something is ‘bad faith,’ (a slight void for vagueness issue) – and that’s in addition to the other comments already made. If you cannot tell me what a bad faith assertion is a priori, how is anyone going to know what a court may determine to be bad faith? The moment this goes beyond what is required to bring an actual federal action, BAM, preemption issues.
Ned: Unless a patent was procured by fraud, it cannot be bad faith to assert a valid patent.
This is a joke, right?
now you are all set to go into one of your famed eplectic rants of rage…
More like set to get myself a hamburger with o-rings. It was delicious. What else did you see in your crystal ball, Spammy?
So it kind of comes down to, either the law asks more than what is required from a federal standpoint (ouch, preemption), or the law is superfluous to what the courts can already do (including what the Vermont courts can already do in regards to things like tortious interference and the like).
Either way, you come out looking like a d1ck, Leopold, and all because you saw the red cape of ‘anon said’ and had to get p1ssy.
And the question after that would be – what exactly does this Vermont law provide that cannot be handled by the courts already?
Oh wait? Wasn’t that the point that a recent chief judge of the court of appeals federal circuit made?
“ I don’t think I’ve ever suggested that an infringer should sue a patent owner.”
LOL – I like how you critize Ned for ‘sneaking’ the word valid into a post, while you sneak in the word ‘infringer.’
Unless of course, you were merely deploying a strawman…
…or being merely pedantic.
Would it help if Ned and I hold your hand and rephrase the question to be:
What about suing a patent owner for exercising a statutory rights to notify possible infringers of their possible infringement?
After all, you are not an infringer until a court says so, right?
But more to Ned’s point, what the Vermont law does is allow anyone to sue someone who follows the designated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for patent infringement.
See link to uscourts.gov
Well, I do jump th egun just a tad, as you still have not provided an answer, so maybe the answer is that the information of Form 18 will enable a patent holder to escape the “bad faith assertion.”
If so, the very next question is: Well, why didn’t you just say so instead of being a d1ck about this?
Fix italics tag.
“you seem incapable of making without our help”
LOL – the ‘help’ I get from you? Sorry, Malcolm, obfuscation, purposeful twisting of fact with spin, misrepresentation, evasion and even outright blatant 1ying is not help here on planet Earth.
Maybe where you come from…
Speaking about l y i n g…. How is the controlling law to the exception to the printed matter doctrine and the “configured to” is structural language helping your agendas?
LOL
“this deliberate vagueness thing”
What are you talking about?
“without notice”
Nice strawman. I’m sure that the granaries are on notice now. And I am sure that Monsanto would be more than willing to put the granaries on notice and collect what is due to them.
Except maybe in Vermont (but let’s wait for an answer from Leopold first).
What are you talking about? Leopold, I am waiting for you to answer the question.
You still haven’t done so.
Why the evasions?
Here let me make it easy for you:
link to greenmountainip.com
Let me know when you want to stop being a d1ck.
Malcolm,
Try to stay on point, will you?
What you label as ‘games’ -regardless of moniker – were not games, and were substantive points.
Sorry but your ‘spin’ just is not the same as actual facts. We covered this already when I discussed the true drivers of poor quality that you merely stood by and [shrugged].
“Uh … no. And thanks for proving my point”
LOL – if your point is the typical Malcolm Self-Defeat (in that you are a hypocrite), you are more than welcome.
Your head, sir.
Really? Showing that you are a first class hypocrite is a classic t–b-gger ‘argument’?
Uh … no. And thanks for proving my point about your kneejerk t–b-gger tendencies. I’m quite certain that you don’t even understand the extraorinary depth of your inherent derpitude.
Smammy McFilter: More questions
We’ll never stop asking you questions, Spammy, until you learn how to write English proficiently and stop dancing around “the points” you seem incapable of making without our help.
I’ll ask you again: is it your position that it’s impossible to determine whether a suit was brought in good faith without a so-called “infringement analysis”? Or is it your position that you lack the intelligence to see how it could otherwise be done? Which is it? I’m happy to do your work for you but only if the record is clear beforehand. Otherwise we all know how you’ll behave: like the s-ci-pathological l y i n g t00l that you are.
Patents are presumed valid by statute. Unless a patent was procured by fraud, it cannot be bad faith to assert a valid patent.
Your first sentence is correct, Ned. What you did with that second one is pretty clever, sticking the word “valid” in front of patent. Do you mean “valid” as in “presumed valid”, or do you mean “valid” as in “no court has yet rendered it invalid”, or do you mean “valid” as in there really truly is no prior art out there that could possibly render the patent invalid?
Here’s a scenario for you. You have an issued patent, that was obtained in good faith. Long after the patent issued, you learn about some prior art that clearly invalidates it. You go to three separate patent attorneys, and they all independently tell you that a court would almost certainly find all claims to be invalid over this prior art. You decide that you want to get what you can from it, so you send letters to a dozen infringers (we’ll assume they’re infringing, for the sake of argument), with an irresistibly low offer of $50K for a paid-up license.
Is your assertion of infringement in good faith? This is a serious question.
“is “free to donate money to the government.””
I think they should be free to donate to whatever pet project they wish it to go to. Then the government establishes whatever baseline on spending they want, and people are free to boost up the funding as much as they wish for their pets.
I know I for one would toss the space program 100$ if it didn’t have to go through appropriations and most likely end up as a small part for a F-15.
Oh yes, buried in the rant:
Ned’s Point of Novelty Canard Alert
This public service brought to you on behalf of McCracken’s Webbreakerz Service.
“It seems the basic violation is asking for compensation at all.”
Yes (as been posted before), enforcing a patent is the “worst thing evah”
That’s because it has to do with evi1 MONEY – What Would Jane Do?