Barnes and Noble calls on US DOJ

Discussion in 'all things UNIX' started by vasa1, Nov 9, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    May 1, 2010
  2. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    May 1, 2010

    If they're really trivial, how does one explain or understand Google's silence?

    edit: or was Google giving a long enough rope? (I hope that explains their silence)

    I love pretending to understand legalese and this is going to give me a lot of interesting reading. Otherwise, I watch grass grow and paint dry for entertainment.

    As a precaution, I've saved that Groklaw page in case it vanishes mysteriously.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2011
  3. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Jun 23, 2003
    West Yorkshire, UK
    I was reading about this last night.
    Based on the information we have so far it does look like Microsoft has either dropped the ball or is clutching at straws.
    It does seem wrong they are charging more for a handful of trivial patent licences than for the entire WP7 OS.
    It does seem wrong about the NDA tatics used to prevent others talking about which patent licences have been discussed.
    It does seem like Microsoft were trying to prevent this information becoming public, a sign of weakness ?
    I can't understand why Microsoft is even defending some of these patents as they so clearly have prior art and/or are trivial (and therefore not patentable), but I am not very clued up on the details of how patents work.

    Cheers, Nick
  4. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Nov 2, 2006
    The whole MS open source friendly went out the window, if it ever convinced anyone.
    Makes you also wonder what happened to competition on the desktop.
    I still think the same. In fact I'm starting to think 10 years is too long..

    I don't see the problem in lack of regulation, although it is marginally better with it as it stands, but i see the main problem in government intervention, namely patents.
  5. Marja

    Marja Honestly, I'm not a bot!!

    Mar 8, 2004
    In the Vast Fields of My Mind
    There's alot to slog thru on this page!!

    MY 2 cents- the patent idea basically boils down to the comment from the article below..

    In business classes we were always taught about
    how getting a patent have to prove it works and you have
    to have proof you came up with it in the first place.
    Somewhere along the line, that went out the window ... :ninja:

    This is huge, if we have any incorrupt justice left in this world ...
    it won't end here.

    Kudos to Barnes and Noble for having the courage to stand up to the bullying tactics.
    (Post from the article)

    Finally someone makes the argument I've been waiting to hear. I've read bunches
    and bunches of these useless software patents, and I really shouldn't. As one at
    least ordinarily skilled in the art I can tell you not much more than a single
    one of the patents I've read have disclosed the art by which I could proceed to
    implement the patent.
    That is an absolute requirement to the issuing of the patent.
    The only two patents I can recall that disclose the art are the MSDOS
    filename patents and the gif patent.

    Finally B&N plainly state this abuse and resulting invalidity "While
    the specification notes the desired functionality of the claimed web browser, it
    provides no software code, points to no exemplary web browsers, and provides no
    other technical details explaining how ...".

    The other thing that bothers me is that there is no longer a requirement to have
    a functional model. Whereas in software, there is really no huge cost preventing
    one from doing this. It should be an absolute requirement for a software patent
    to include at a minimum the algortihm(s) invented.

    If one can't produce either pseudocode or an algorithm, how do we know they
    invented anything?
    Without either algorithm or pseudocode it's mere conjecture
    you've invented something. Until you've actually written the code or proven it
    you have only got an idea in your head.

    Same thing goes for the real world. You might have a marvelous "idea"
    to build an airplane, but unless you've proven your design either on paper, in a
    software program or actually built a working model how does anyone know if that
    you can actually build a working model. It doesn't matter how brilliant or
    innovative your idea is, unless you have the actual skills to build it, or to
    direct another on how to build it.

    That, is a major reason why the patent system of today doesn't work. Lawyers are
    sitting in boardrooms "inventing" software patents, lawyers who
    probably couldn't program their way out of a virtual paper bag.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.