Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Weighs in on Patent Fight ~ eBay and others
Las Vegas Sun ^
| March 29, 2006
| TONI LOCY
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted on 03/30/2006 10:12:04 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 last
To: quietolong
To: Beelzebubba
Then perhaps the Constitution should be amended to reward implementers who use other people's inventions, instead of securing to inventors the right to their inventions. So as the Constitution stands you believe the makers of the "Jetson's" have invented the flying car?
I can't wait to patent the cure for cancer. Why should I have to actually implement it first?
42
posted on
04/01/2006 8:32:59 AM PST
by
AndyTheBear
(Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
To: Paul C. Jesup
Didn't the Supreme Court already rule that software is a matter of Copyright laws and not Patent laws. No, can you be more specific? I am aware that there are thousands and thousands of software algorithm "patents". Perhaps calling them patents is only a layman term? Perhaps this ruling you speak of was recent and just overturned them?
Most of the time no legal challenges are made, because they are just too silly. But there are some lawyer heavy "software" companies who don't really produce software, but simply try to patent the obvious and bring harassment lawsuits.
43
posted on
04/01/2006 8:43:02 AM PST
by
AndyTheBear
(Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
To: common_pundit
Frankly this document contributed nothing new and orginal--it just demonstrated to audacity of a certain company to try to "patent" the obvious.
If they had actually invented the bar-code scanner they would have a case.
44
posted on
04/01/2006 8:56:45 AM PST
by
AndyTheBear
(Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
To: AndyTheBear
No, can you be more specific?
Sorry no, I vaguely remember a ruling that software was covered by copyright laws. That is why I asked.
To: supercat
hey super,
I don't know where your coming from so I'll just call it as I see it.
you said "The key to eBay isn't the "idea". It's the investment of time and effort into implementation and marketing."
To which I reply that you are dead wrong. Why?
First the constitution of the US, which grants a patent where the rights to a MONOPOLY to the patent holder (whether it be idea, implementation, prototype etc.) who is the first to conceive and apply; not first to file as in so many other countries, the first to conceive and apply.
Second, E-bay made the BIG mistake of not checking prior art for their little unoriginal idea. The mistake cost them $5 mil. Their loss the patent holders gain. So the constitution says your wrong, patent law says your wrong, the trial judge syas your wrong, and now the Supreme Court says your wrong. So actually that makes you wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. You must get a clue.
PS if your little idea for RAM to bus is novel, and teaches new art - then patent it.
The problem is no one would be interested in it as you stated.
You would never get an E-bay to infringe, but if they did you could sue and win if they were dumb enough to try and implement it without license from you.
Lurking'
To: LurkingSince'98
Don't you think there's a problem with issued patents being too broad?
47
posted on
04/02/2006 10:56:06 AM PDT
by
jess35
To: jess35
I think there are good patents and bad patents, patents that are too broad and patents that are too narrow.
The thing about patents is that are they are no good until they are adjudicated, tried and found by a court of competent jurisdiction, to be good and valuable and infringed upon. When that happens you have a good patent. Until then you just have a patent.
The patent in the article is about as good as it gets. Maybe E-bay disagrees; but(too bad - so sad) they LOST in court.
Lurking'
To: AndyTheBear
>>So as the Constitution stands you believe the makers of the "Jetson's" have invented the flying car?
Don't be silly. The concept of a flying car is not patentable. But there may be an invention that enables cars to fly, which may be patentable.
>>I can't wait to patent the cure for cancer. Why should I have to actually implement it first?
If you invent it to a level where your patent application provides compete instructions on how your invention can be implemented to cure cancer, then you will deserve your patent, and deserve your billions, and deserve the thanks of a grateful world. What's the problem with that?
49
posted on
04/03/2006 4:59:34 PM PDT
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
To: Beelzebubba
If you invent it to a level where your patent application provides compete instructions on how your invention can be implemented to cure cancer, then you will deserve your patent, and deserve your billions, and deserve the thanks of a grateful world. What's the problem with that? <sarcasm>But I want money for just having the idea of a flying car and of curing cancer. They are big ideas!</sarcasm>
But as I had said (before you obliged me to be silly to make a point) big ideas are a dime a dozen. I think we both agree that detailed not obvious plans that contribute to success should be rewarded, but I just don't think that "software" companies that have more lawyers then engineers are into that business.
50
posted on
04/03/2006 8:39:11 PM PDT
by
AndyTheBear
(Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
To: AndyTheBear
big ideas are a dime a dozen
And people who actually read and understand patents (as opposed to trusting business writers) know that such ideas are unpatentable.
51
posted on
04/03/2006 9:53:31 PM PDT
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson