SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The EFF reports that Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy has announced that he is taking the Innovation Act off the Judiciary Committee's agenda. According to Senator Leahy's official statement:
Unfortunately, there has been no agreement on how to combat the scourge of patent trolls on our economy without burdening the companies and universities who rely on the patent system every day to protect their inventions. We have heard repeated concerns that the House-passed bill went beyond the scope of addressing patent trolls, and would have severe unintended consequences on legitimate patent holders who employ thousands of Americans.
I have said all along that we needed broad bipartisan support to get a bill through the Senate. Regrettably, competing companies on both sides of this issue refused to come to agreement on how to achieve that goal.
However, the Innovation Act passed 325-91 in the House with strong bipartisan support, as well as massive support from industry as well, and the President has signalled his support for the initiative. The EFF comments:
Leahy effectively deferred a problem—a serious problem he readily admits exists—in order to please the pharmaceutical, biotech, and university lobbies that are hardly the victims of patent trolls anyway... What Senator Leahy really means, is that he does not support a deal and is willing to be the final roadblock.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Alfred on Thursday May 22 2014, @05:43PM
Can I patent bad legislative skills to stop bad decisions by claiming infringement? There must be a loophole I can use if I have enough lawyers.
Probably not, there is no group in history with this much prior art on record.
(Score: 4, Funny) by bucc5062 on Thursday May 22 2014, @06:01PM
If somehow you can add, on the computer or on the internet I think you're golden.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday May 22 2014, @07:35PM
What's funny about this statement and its subsequent 'funny' moderation is that the 'on a computer' stipulation means the patent is not broad, but rather very specific. It's that same reason that a company like Nike wouldn't be able to sue a company like Belkin because their network cables infringe on a patent on preventing shoelaces from fraying. This is actually what people want, despite the crap the green-site fed you all for years.
Perhaps if tech news sites didn't use headlines like: "Microsoft Patents Page Turning!!!1!" there'd be a lot less anger on the matter.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Funny) by cmn32480 on Thursday May 22 2014, @06:19PM
Just don't round the corners.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 22 2014, @07:39PM
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday May 22 2014, @08:02PM
Were you educated on drugs when you were educated on English?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 22 2014, @08:42PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Thursday May 22 2014, @09:34PM
> That was about trade-dress and not about functionality.
In this case that's a distinction without a difference. The idea that something so generic as rounded corners, a black face or a grid of icons could qualify for any sort of legal ownership by adding "on a phone" is farcical and just another example of where the law has become so abstract as to no longer be tethered in the world of regular people (who are, after all, the ones whom trade dress is supposed to inform).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 22 2014, @10:33PM
> In this case that's a distinction without a difference.
No, it is not. The trade dress of a product is designed to prevent consumer confusion, it prevents you from purchasing a Sory TV, for example. The prior art people love to bring up all the time are all part of the filing that Apple made... because, again, this is trade-dress and not a utility patent. Also, it wasn't that the corners were rounded, it was that the rounded corners were one of the 25+ similarities between the Galaxy Tab and the iPad that were specifically duplicated, even down to their radius.
> The idea that something so generic as rounded corners... could qualify for any sort of legal ownership by adding "on a phone" is farcical...
The distinction between trade-dress and utility would help you understand this topic better. It is not a topic that has been properly covered on the popular news-tech sites, and even less so on those that serve ads. You're suffering from sensationalism-poisoning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 23 2014, @03:04AM
Except if everyone already uses round corners in almost every product. What makes Apple so special that they can claim them as their own?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 23 2014, @03:49AM
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Friday May 23 2014, @05:37AM
> This was adequately covered in the very post you replied to.
No, it really wasn't. All that post did was ignore the fact that I expressed clear knowledge of what the goal of trade dress is and that the features in dispute here are far too generic to be meaningful trade dress. It wasn't much more than a reiteration of your original point without taking into account anything I wrote, like you only read enough of it to leave out the relevant parts when you quoted it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 23 2014, @06:56AM
> No, it really wasn't...
It was but for some reason, as evidenced again by your most recent post, you and the other AC can't seem to interpret a key phrase in my post that adequately answers the question. I really don't get it. Either my post has sentence or two in it that keeps disappearing before you see it (real-time NSA censorship maybe...?) or you want me to repeat it for debate reasons. I'm happy to discuss this with you but it's going to take a long time if I have to repeat myself... which is weird to do in a written context. I mean, I suppose I could have a test at the end of every post. Something like: "Name a condition that would invalidate a trade-dress patent" or "why would a specific element of a trade dress patent not be rendered invalid by prior art". The flaw in that approach, though, is that if you could actually pass that test we have nothing more to debate about. We'd have to move on to the working conditions at Foxconn or antenna-gate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 23 2014, @11:12AM
lol, meandering incoherence FTL!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 23 2014, @04:05PM
Alter course! Speed: Full cop-out!!
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday May 23 2014, @10:54PM
Since the guy you were replying too was too polite to say it: Holy crap, are you *illiterate* or something?
Here, I'll make it easy for you. Here's exactly where it was addressed:
"Rounded corners" is generic.
"Rounded corners exactly 13mmx16mm" is specific.
"Rounded corners exactly 13mmx16mm plus these other 24 precisely replicated design aspects" is specific enough to be a trade dress violation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24 2014, @12:54AM
I just wanted to say thank you.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday May 24 2014, @01:53AM
>> Also, it wasn't that the corners were rounded, it was that the rounded corners were one of the
>> 25+ similarities between the Galaxy Tab and the iPad that were specifically duplicated, even
>> down to their radius.
>
> "Rounded corners exactly 13mmx16mm" is specific.
That's great except for the inconvenient fact that Apple did not win any claims with respect to the Galaxy Tab [vox-cdn.com] and that the corners on Samsung's phones did not have an identical radius to the iphone, [justia.com] they aren't even equally rounded on the same phone with the top corners have a smaller radius than the bottom corners.
But I'm pretty sure you knew that already which is why, despite having specific measurements in hand, you deliberately left out any links to document your claims. Jackass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24 2014, @02:17AM
The word 'win' was not used, no inconvenience there. You really should get that reading comprehension problem sorted out before call anybody a jackass. Seriously. One of us will send us a link and you'll 'refute' it by using your selective memory as a super-power.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday May 24 2014, @02:40AM
> The word 'win' was not used, no inconvenience there.
Lol, the old "I didn't literally say that" defense. Of course the entire problem with patent reform are the claims that are not won.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24 2014, @03:40AM
> Lol, the old "I didn't literally say that" defense.
Lol, the old "I object, it's devastating to my case!" defense.
> Of course the entire problem with patent reform are the claims that are not won.
I am reminded of Kelly Bundy trying to impress some of her more academically-inclined classmates at a party: "Of course the Soviet Union was bound to fall, it's all the way at the end of the map!"
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday May 24 2014, @05:01AM
>> Of course the entire problem with patent reform are the claims that are not won.
>
> Lol, the old "I object, it's devastating to my case!" defense.
You appear to be trying to refute my point. I don't see it though.
Will you explain why the claims that Apple lost on are relevant to patent reform?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24 2014, @05:55AM
Please pardon my confusion, I wasn't expecting the goal posts to shift to the other end of the field. You want me to explain to you why Apple losing a claim involving a trade-dress patent, that has an element that you think they shouldn't have because you think it's a humorously-broad utility patent, is relevant to the patent reform that, if you had your way, would deny them from having a utility-patent that they don't actually and couldn't possibly have? I might have taken on that challenge on except I've already given you valuable relevant info that took three posts and an extra participant to get you to even notice was there... and I really don't think you've quite absorbed it yet. Kelly, I think your fish tank is full.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday May 24 2014, @06:00AM
> because you think it's a humorously-broad utility patent,
Since I never once said that, in fact my very first sentence on the topic was to spell out that whether it is a utility patent or trade dress, it does not matter to the larger point. But you keep projecting it on my position as a strawman so I think we are done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24 2014, @07:00AM
You did, actually, especially in your first post, and that was not the only instance of it. It *does* matter but you don't understand the distinction, it's something you're bizarrely averse to, so you cannot see why it matters. That is not a failing on my part, it is solely yours. You're welcome to bail to save try to face if you like, but you should take my advice and avoid using rounded corners as an argument for patent reform to an educated person. You'll enjoy the same luck a friend of mine did when he help up a 3.25" disk to his Computer Science teacher and called it a hard-drive.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday May 27 2014, @12:45PM
Ah, well that is certainly a valid refutation of his argument then. I was just assuming the facts as stated were valid since you hadn't yet provided any assertion otherwise. I only looked up the iPhone radius.