America's leading patent law source
For those who’ve been asking whether Jay has any specific ideas for a more efficient licensing system, yes indeed he does:
link to ipwatchdog.com
“look at me look at me”
As 6 has pointed out, Sunday is usually a very difficult day for Billy. Looks like he’s losing his shirt even earlier than usual.
lol, because covering up your loss of your own shirt is just so very “difficult.”
(not to mention how everyone knows just how often 6 is right about anything)
Little circle reinforcing FAIL.
MM, it is pretty clear that you just post on top whenever another post on the top holds a view you don’t like.
MM’s smoke machine gen erates an enormous amount of smoke.
you just post on top whenever another post on the top holds a view you don’t like
Do you sell your Super Giant Tinfoil Hats or do you just advertise them?
Either way, you should probably check the patent database first to make sure you aren’t infringing, especially since you’re using an networked text dissemination application as part of your business.
“Do you sell…
LOL – Poor Malcolm, he has used up all other suppliers of tinfoil hats as still is in need for more.
Sure MM. Sure MM. Just a coincidence. Fact is that every time a post is on the top with content that goes against your policy statement sheet you post another one of your j unk posts.
AMDOCS LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC.
7. A method of processing [data] comprising:
receiving [data] from a first source;
correlating the first [data] with [data] available from a second source; and
using the [second data] with which the first [data] is correlated to enhance the first [data].
Try to believe that a piece of miserable cr xp like this was granted by the USPTO.
And now we’re being told by the self-proclaimed Most Important Innundators Ever that we need more of this stuff and we need to make it less risky (not more) to approach folks and threaten them with litigation unless they take a license to gar bage like this.
We don’t need more j nk like this in our patent system. We don’t need to make this kind of cr xp easier to obtain or easier to enforce or easier to license. We need to get it out of the system, and quickly.
After that, we can work quickly to make the patent system useful again for innovators who advance technology as oppposed to the bottom-of-the-pond innundations dredged up by starry-eyed wannabe Internet billionaires trying to sx cker us all into subscribing to another advertising platform (“I claim an information processing method, wherein, in response to a request, a configured computer provides information about the availability of potable drinking water to a community, wherein the community is within 150 miles of one of the Great Lakes, and wherein the community’s regular drinking water supply has been deemed unsafe, and wherein said potable drinking water is delivered individuals at a predetermined drop-off point, wherein said drop-off point is not a gas station, convenience store, or grocery outlet.”)
Try to believe … like this was granted by the USPTO
I don’t have to believe … I know. I know those claims are getting allowed EVERY DAY. Doesn’t it make you warm inside?
We need to get it out of the system, and quickly.
This propaganda was paid for by whom?
This propaganda was paid for by whom?
Because people never express their views unless they are paid to do so.
Pretty sure that was not the point that Oh no was making – and more than pretty sure you already knew that.
See this video of Michelle Lee: link to youtube.com
No one could watch this and doubt that Lee is a shill for Google and unfit to run our patent system.
What is going on now? Rader’s seat is being auctioned to the highest bidder.
Will pharma or Google win? My bet is with Google.
What a joke of a democracy we live in when a shadow director can be appointed to the PTO and institute massive changes under the direction of Google.
Will pharma or Google win?
Because those are the only two options in Night Wiper’s tiny, tiny mind.
Uh, no. Because those are the two players that are putting up the money to buy the next appointment.
those are the two players that are putting up the money to buy the next appointment.
Tell everyone who bought Kappos.
Kappos is a different topic as anyone that follows patent law knows the environment has changed since the Kappos appointment.
But, good representation, good on smoke, but there was no insult so I’ll give you a B.
Meant good on “misrepresentation.”
the environment has changed since the Kappos appointment.
Tell everyone: who bought Kappos?
How in the “H” are you trying to take a “pro-Kappos” position, given as you had repetitively attempted to denigrate the man?
What makes you assume I’m taking a “pro Kappos” position? I’m just asking: who bought him?
Night Wiper: Google and pharma [sic] are the two players that are putting up the money to buy the next appointment.
Why do you think these “two” “players” will be unable to agree on an appointment?
>> pharma [sic]
link to en.wikipedia.org
I think my use of Pharma was fine.
How many patents does “pharma” own? How many employees in “pharma”? Net worth of “pharma”?
>>How many patents does “pharma” own? How many employees >>in “pharma”? Net worth of “pharma”?
Maybe you aren’t a paid shill but just a very dum(b) bored person with nothing better to do.
Oh yeah, Mor0n Milly (MM). Never feels quite right when I respond to you if I don’t add an insult. Probably because most of your posts include an insult that is about as sophisticated as name calling.
Never feels quite right when I respond to you if I don’t add an insult. Probably because most of your posts include an insult that is about as sophisticated as name calling.
Or because you’re an id i0t.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There you go boy. Be yourself and get those insults in.
Lee is a disaster. Another lie from her is the great advantage of first mover advantage.
But, you know that isn’t really true absent patents. The reality is that without patents what is going to happen is that copying will become much more efficient. The copied product will come on the market with days of the actual product (or weeks) and negate the first mover advantage.
We have the shill only telling us the disadvantages without an appreciation of the real complex world of product development. And, yes, I have been a product developer in the real world for real multi-billion dollar tech products.
I have been a product developer in the real world for real multi-billion dollar tech products.
Sure you have.
Uh yeah. I have. For real. Not pretend like your blog life here is.
Uh yeah. I have. For real.
Right. Keep telling yourself that. It makes you really impressive and important.
Uh no. It gives first hand experience of what real product development and innovation is like. As in Lee is selling a fantasy.
What “fantasy” is Lee “selling”, Mr. Self-proclaimed Multi Billion Dollar Developer?
MM read. I told you. I am not playing your dum(b) game.
Nice video NWPA. She’s got lots of good things to say.
Also my youtube recommends
link to youtube.com
That is an interesting video 6.
I skimmed over a little of it — not a natural speaker. It was like listening to a professor with a reputation of droning on and putting students to sleep.
I agree. A robot controlled by her overlords with the stock options.
Did you say overlords…
link to theverge.com
(not to be confused with Starlord)
Much earlier. I asked what Walker thinks is wrong with the licensing system.
Ned gave me a helpful reply, viz:
“I think Walker is complaining about the fact that one cannot even send a letter to a a company offering a license without risking being DJ’ed.”
But Ned, I still don’t understand. Attack has always been the best form of defence. Indeed, depending on the circumstances, I wonder if it might not be a dereliction of duty to the shareholders, not to respond with a Petition for a DJ. So, what could be more normal and rational and indeed reasonable than to respond (if it’s allowed) with a petition to a court for a DJ?
In Europe, your DJ Petition is entertained however only if you have already been threatened with proceedings for infringement. That seems to prevent disproportionate responses to mere enquiries about taking a licence. Would that fix satisfy Mr Walker, I wonder?
Of course, there is nothing in Europe to stop a party who has been mildly and unthreateningly invited to take a licence from responding with a vigorous action to have the asserted claims declared invalid. What does Mr Walker think about that? Is he against that too? If so, why?
Perhaps what is puzzling you is the uneven treatment being portrayed as to the enforcement in court of patent rights (bad) versus challenging validity (good).
Here in the States, the propaganda machine has been in overdrive to portray patents as necessarily evi1. Can you recall even one story of a lawsuit being portrayed as a good thing?
As to your thought about ability to bring a DJ action (viz “entertain”), I commented below on this exact point, even differentiating the open use of the IPR system (anyone can challenge what they perceive to be an improperly granted patent) with the quite different DJ action/court battle.
If one takes a step back, it is quite easy to see that this is yet another form of “patent profanity” in that there are natural reactions to court decisions (make it easier to frustrate negotiations through the legitimized use of the courts). What you see as “what could be more normal and rational and indeed reasonable than to respond (if it’s allowed)” is indeed perfectly reasonable to contemplate as a business decision. What becomes unreasonable and irrational is to take a one-sided view of “using the courts (if it’s allowed). The hubabub is all about how certain entities – engaged in using the courts in an allowed matter – STILL are just not right in doing so.
There is a disparity in “allowed use” that is quite evident. Certain allowed uses appear to be “better” than others. The view from a step back is that the alignment of “better” just happens to be one that aligns with the anti-patent forces. That’s the way that propaganda works my friend.
Can you recall even one story of a lawsuit being portrayed as a good thing?
I can recall quite a few, Billy, mostly written by self-interested, self-important, self-deluded people like your mentor and hero. It’s always a wonderful day when those bad old “copiers” Google and Apple get sued for patent infringement, isn’t it? Or Wells Fargo — because banks are bad and patent lawyer innundator types look so cool when they dress up in their Robin Hood tights. And didn’t Big Jenny publish a long screed recently by some millionaire attorney assuring us all that the American Revolution was really about our awesome right to file patent patent lawsuits? Surely that was a “good thing.”
So your wonderful stories are being written, Billy. It’s just that most normal people don’t find them terribly compelling.
Max, once upon a time there were no reexaminations or IPRs, and one could not go to court unless one had at least been charged with infringement. Offering a license was not enough.
We live in a quite different world today where small fry cannot even attempt to license IP without being crushed.
Now that might seem OK to a Euro who have long existed in a world that protected the high and mighty in all sorts of different techniques, from loser pays costs and fees, to cancellation proceedings without standing. But it is something new to the US.
Because the Red Queen / Humpty Dumpty has so decreed.
It’s Ned doing the “decreeing”, Billy, not me.
Maybe Ned can tell everyone what exactly a “small fry” is. Regardless, I’m quite certain that many, many “small fry” are successfully licensing their patents regularly without being “crushed.”
Are these “small fry” becoming instant billionaires as a result of that licensing? Not in most cases. Is that a problem that anybody should care about? Nope.
Ned’s claim is an extraordinary claim. Let’s see Ned’s extraordinary evidence in support of that claim.
Ned I don’t recognise the “crush the little guy Europe” that you describe. If there is a paucity of start up activity in Europe, the explanation is not Europe’s patent system.
Business monitors the publication flow out of the Patent Office, to minimise the risk of being caught unawares. If an individual is lucky enough to have filed on something patentable which that industry finds attractive, players in that branch of industry will find it greatly more interesting and sensible to take an exclusive licence than to “crush” the small fry. Attaining the status of licensee or assignee gives it a potentially lucrative edge over its competitors.
Conversely, if an individual is asserting claims that look like they are invalid, industry will likely ignore the noise, confident that real infringement proceedings will never start but, even if they do, a simple counterclaim will end in a finding of invalidity. So no need to “crush” anybody there either.
In short, good patents get respect but bad ones don’t. In these days of contingency fees and legal expenses insurance, Loser Pays does not deny the little guy a seat at the table. But, as there is nothing a loser likes less than having actually to pay hard cash into the bank account of the Victor, Loser Pays serves to promote quick wins for those lucky enough to be holding a claim that is obviously infringed, and not obviously invalid.
Now you fit the description of naive.
Max, see anon’s post.
We have a long history of very tough actors here in the US who are quite willing to use their muscle to win.
I have seen two major differences in licensing in the last half century, and am curious as to impressions of others:
1. patent licenses offered on newer patents for new technologies to businesses (for that business to consider making) were more predominant in the past, and
2. Licenses were then more often offered for a relatively low up-front cash payments plus a running royalty % of sales or revenues.
The latter [2.] began to decline after it became possible to take a low up front cost running royalty license and end those payments by a reexamination or by litigation holding the subject patent claims invalid.
The former [1.] seems to have become numerically overwhelmed by license offers that are primarily now really infringment assertions of old patents against existing and previously independently developed products of others demanding large cash payments. I do not doubt that this has made many companies over-reactively “gun shy” of even the former [1.] type of license offer. Especially if the license contact offer does not clearly indicate that it does not related to any existing product and is not an infringement assertion of any kind [which will also preclude a D.J. reaction].
One thing I have seen is a great reluctance to do anything given that a letter or telephone call may bring you into a year of an IPR and cost you $500k.
Slightly OT, but the numbers are starting to show…
Starting to show wut? That government regulations are likely strangling new startups?
Frankly I don’t doubt it. But then, it may simply be that less and less people have the means and drive to start new startups than in the 70s. Note the very selective starting point for their data.
try again – thus time with your eyes open.
You know, actually, the patent system was revered up by Reagon who saw the patent system as a way to get out of the malaise of the 1970’s as described by Carter.
We are certainly headed back there. I think this is a complicated situation in that there are now new ways of funding companies with the stock market fed zapped free money, but, by and large, the big picture is that we are entering a time when there is no enforcement of anti-trust laws, employment laws, and patents are becoming worthless. We will soon have just one, two, or at most three players in almost every field with a few extraordinary exceptions like Tesla, which was driven by a man with boundless energy and lots of money from a start-up.
That is the big picture. The shills and clowns don’t see it, but how do you know this accurate? The best indication is things like Goldman Sachs recent investment report saying to invest in monopolies. And, in the fact that companies are becoming more and more proprietary in their technology. If you think about you realize that proprietary stuff only works in monopolies. When you have only have 20 percent market share, then except for rare exceptions you better not use you own stuff or the bigger market will swallow you.
Anyway, that is reality. The big picture reality.
I would also add that another aspect of this is the capture of the federal government, so our economy is beginning to look more and more like it did before the Sherman Anti-Trust act. This is also true of the income disparity.
You know, another big picture item is that the income disparity is getting worse and is going to get much worse. And the monopolies are going to get worse. Much worse. Look at finance. They sheered the entire country and come out on top with no jail time, no claw backs, and now an insurance policy that no matter what they do they are covered.
Who cares you say? Well, you should it costs each of us money in the aggregate.
I thought I heard the other day the TARP etc. were paid back more or less in full and with interest?
there is no enforcement of …employment laws
Where did you dredge up this nonsense?
there is no enforcement of anti-trust laws
patents are becoming worthless
Hopefully that’s true of most computer-implemented j nk but patents on valuable tangible products and methods of making them are going to remain valuable. Where’s the problem?
Again we get Mor0n Milly’s (MM) basement fantasy cut on life. As in, my world down here in my parents’ basement is good. I make $80K blogging on here for pharma.
$80k? More like $800k. I mean, why hold back when you’re pulling stuff out of yr bu tt?
You tell us MM what it is.
I do believe that most of the clowns (not the shills) believe that patents are bad. Like I believe that 6 is a clown not a shill.
MM and Ned are clearly shills.
And, note for MM and Ned the way their policies are all geared toward pharma. We know they are both being paid by phrama through their statements.