petegrif

28 ms·

271.
by petegrif 15y ago
"One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general." This is possibly the most important statement in the piece.
272.
by petegrif 15y ago
This is a simple minded piece. It is so riddled with half digested bs I don't even know where to start with it. I guess I'll just pick on something so blindingly obvious that anyone with more than one braincell (which apparently does not
273.
by petegrif 15y ago
I think his best bet for keeping it is probably to keep it quiet.
274.
by petegrif 15y ago
That is insane.
275.
by petegrif 15y ago
Great piece.
276.
by petegrif 15y ago
Cool piece.
277.
by petegrif 15y ago
I don't understand what, if any, point you are really making here.
278.
by petegrif 15y ago
Not quite that simple. They also work with leading scientists to innovate.
279.
by petegrif 15y ago
This is an incredibly lame piece. The best I can find to say for it is that he spelt Myhrvold's name right. Otherwise it is crummy rant. He couldn't even do research a 4th grader would find simple - look up his target in Wikipedia and ta
280.
by petegrif 15y ago
I have looked into this further to confirm my belief. You don't have to license your patented IP. This is well treated in: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-does-5-buy-htc-...
281.
by petegrif 15y ago
Much clearer - thank you.
282.
by petegrif 15y ago
Against what? Is your concern that you will (hopefully inadvertently) infringe on someone else's patent or that someone will rip off your invention?
283.
by petegrif 15y ago
No - it has to be an invention. In other words, whether someone chooses to implement it or not the description section of the patent has to describe the invention in such detail that it can be implemented by someone with ordinary skill in
284.
by petegrif 15y ago
I think you have posted this in the wrong place. It has nothing to do with the point of this thread.
285.
by petegrif 15y ago
You may or may not be correct about the fact that there was prior art in the case of the Apple suit. That however does not refute my key point which is that time and time again discussions include endless statements about how obvious somet
286.
by petegrif 15y ago
Highly unlikely. There are many suppliers of phones and even of smartphones.
287.
by petegrif 15y ago
You are 50% right. The title isn't the patent - true. But the description isn't the patent either. The description serves to demonstrate how the claims may be implemented and hence underwrites their validity. It is the claims that have th
288.
by petegrif 15y ago
Yeah - Apple really has a crummy record on innovation compared with... ... oh yeah... now that I actually engage my brain for a millisecond... they have been pretty innovative haven't they?
289.
by petegrif 15y ago
It isn't. The overwhelming majority of competition is about innovation.
290.
by petegrif 15y ago
I don't understand the question - please rephrase.
291.
by petegrif 15y ago
I don't believe you do have license your patented IP unless you choose to do so and I would be interested to see evidence to the contrary.
292.
by petegrif 15y ago
A language which the overwhelming majority of people are (understandably) completely unfamiliar.
293.
by petegrif 15y ago
Of course - it's so easy that only someone of high moral character wouldn't do it.
294.
by petegrif 15y ago
The technical term is not 'a general practitioner' but 'one ordinarily skilled in the art.' And that ordinary skill is in the directly relevant art. So the proper question is 'was the invention novel and non-obvious to one ordinarily skil
295.
by petegrif 15y ago
excellent summation
296.
by petegrif 15y ago
For major players I think it is likely to scale precisely because of the pervasiveness of patents in the area. Those companies with substantial patent portfolios (many of them as you pointed out) gain nothing by suing each other and so mos
297.
by petegrif 15y ago
This strategy may work for those cases where the troll has a claim of questionable value but what about the cases where the troll holds a meaningful patent and has a valid claim?
298.
by petegrif 15y ago
?? I'm sorry. I don't understand your point. Could you explain it for me.
299.
by petegrif 15y ago
hysterical :)
300.
by petegrif 15y ago
No it wouldn't. Patents are deeply enshrined in US law and a patent holder is perfectly within their rights to pursue those infringing on their rights. In fact that is the only right they have!!

More ›