petegrif

31 ms·

301.
by petegrif 15y ago
The really big unaddressed question in this post is whether Google actually does have to defend Android. After all, $10 per handset is nothing like as much as the cost of developing, maintaining and supporting your own smartphone OS. We'r
302.
by petegrif 15y ago
So if I understand you correctly, even if someone has a meaningful valid patent and infringers on reviewing the patent agree that it is a valid patent, and even if the licensing terms are agreed to be reasonable by both parties, even in suc
303.
by petegrif 15y ago
The writer, who has indeed attacked software patents on previous occasions, omits a key step in his argument. para 3 "Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that Android infringes on anyone's patents.:" This is absolutely correct. But it
304.
by petegrif 15y ago
It would help if they characterized 'patent trolls' accurately. Their alleged behavior is after all the subject of the piece.
305.
by petegrif 15y ago
Lame poorly written piece without clear argument or even any remotely convincing substantiation for its disconnected assertions.
306.
by petegrif 15y ago
great post - thanks Brad Feld = respect
307.
by petegrif 15y ago
I agree. It is somewhat ironic that Paul Adams who promoted this idea so forcibly whilst at google now works for...facebook.
308.
by petegrif 15y ago
My faith in some of the research underlying this article took a fatal hit when I read that the researchers discovered that whereas a dishwasher with no degree earned $19K, a college graduate earned $34K for the same menial task. It may jus
309.
by petegrif 15y ago
Fabulous!
310.
by petegrif 15y ago
This is why so many people think patents are unfair - because they are so obvious. :)
311.
by petegrif 15y ago
data structures?
312.
by petegrif 15y ago
No. Because the law is perfectly clear on this point. Algorithms cannot be patented.
313.
by petegrif 15y ago
IMHO you are missing an absolutely critical point and are therefore falling prey to the hindsight effect. Let's imagine that you have a brilliant idea right now, one that NOW is not at all obvious. What does that mean? It means that NOW (
314.
by petegrif 15y ago
I honestly don't understand the point you are making. Would you mind elaborating? Thanks.
315.
by petegrif 15y ago
@romp please see my post above about 'the obviousness test' IMHO this relationship between patents and what is obvious is the source of a huge amount of misunderstanding about and opposition to patents. I have no problem with serious dis
316.
by petegrif 15y ago
@rwmj - the question is not whether it is obvious now but rather was their invention obvious then. Do you have any reason to believe it was obvious then? Remember that this very question has been litigated with MS doing everything in thei
317.
by petegrif 15y ago
i4i is exactly such a small company.
318.
by petegrif 15y ago
I am in favor of software patents and I am in favor of shortening the duration. (In this context we somehow have to reform USPTO so that they can get a patent out in less than 3-5 years! remember this time comes off the term of the patent
319.
by petegrif 15y ago
Not really. In fact it makes a large swathe of speculative litigation to invalidate patents rather less likely so you can rest easy. :)
320.
by petegrif 15y ago
"It's so ridiculous theyre essentially patenting generic syntaxes for representing documents that anybody "skilled in the art" would come up with in 5 minutes." now - sure but then? - apparently not as extensive litigation demonstrated. And
321.
by petegrif 15y ago
@aroberge - that is absolutely correct. Part of the reason that MS were hit so hard is precisely because they knowingly and willfully infringed.
322.
by petegrif 15y ago
A giant amongst men.
323.
by petegrif 15y ago
Great article. I am always amazed by how well K writes.
324.
by petegrif 15y ago
That is clearly not a reasonable test. In fact it is almost certainly a great test for someone having innovated in a valuable way. If you file a worthless patent then no-one will be interested in your innovation and there will be no-one t
325.
by petegrif 15y ago
That is precisely what they don't do. All they do is stop someone else from claiming it as an innovation with the associated IP rights. There is nothing to stop someone innovating like a fiend. But surely it is blindingly obvious that co
326.
by petegrif 15y ago
" In fact, the very fact that we have patent trolls that can run around and sue business after business after business for the same patent, while the businesses have no evidence that shows they have communicated with each other about the pa
327.
by petegrif 15y ago
There are many ideas that I can't stand. Fortunately I weigh them against their likelihood and find that reassuring. I suggest you do likewise. The probability that in your noodling you will develop something non-obvious and worthy of in
328.
by petegrif 15y ago
I have read the piece in question. I don't understand how it answers Notjim's question. What is the alternative?
329.
by petegrif 15y ago
One well documented problem here is 'hindsight effect.' After something has been invented and has been used for even a short while it becomes 'obvious.' This effect is so powerful that it is in fact difficult for attorneys representing pa
330.
by petegrif 15y ago
I have seen quite a few people who have filed patents state that they don't understand their own patents and (as a general statement) I find this puzzling. A patent has 3 main sections (a) background and prior art (b) description of the in

More ›