Re: grant multiple patents for the same thing to different parties
I sometimes wonder how there is not a lot of collision between these two driving forces, such as they would grant multiple patents for the same thing to different parties.
They do. That's the problem.
Some poor bastard invests his life savings and those of his friends and family into a startup to make something new, and gets sued into oblivion for his efforts by one of those parties.
This security flaw is so simple, so obvious, that no competent developer would have ever done it that way in the first place.
The problem is that nobody at Kids Pass had enough brains. So it's not surprising that when confronted with a problem their instinct is to hide it and bury their head in the sand.
You just can't fix stupid. You can only try to avoid it.
Do you speak from experience as an attorney or litigant?
If you're correct, and if the courts don't address the justice of that via assignment of costs, etc., then this is a condemnation of far more than the PTO and trademark law - it's a condemnation of our entire legal system.
How much does that add up to, realistically? A couple hours a month?
That doesn't strike me as "big money" for a business of 10 or 20 people. And at some point either there will be a resolution or Gallo will give up (esp. if they're getting bad publicity, which they are).
Am I not getting something? Why does this guy think he can't fight this?
The most troubling thing for Landa? He insists he can win a legal fight, but not without big money - money he simply doesn't have.
I know there a lot of lawyers here at Techdirt.
Can somebody please explain why fighting and winning this requires "big money"?
IANAL (as I've amply demonstrated in the past). But surely there is some process for adjudicating this dispute before the PTO.
Why does that process, in a simple case like this, require "big money"? I find it hard to imagine it would require more than a few hours for a competent trademark attorney to draft a document disputing Gallo's claim.
So - what? $2000? Is that "big money" for a brewery?
Sadly, this is probably the most insightful and practical response.
It's likely the only way to get the FCC to address the issue.
Altho, my understanding is that that process the FCC is supposed to follow is to address the content of the comments, not their number.
That is, it's not a vote - how many people repeat the same position, or make the same points, isn't supposed to matter.
Instead, the agency is supposed to address each unique point raised in comments. So that the technocrats can consider those points in making their wise decision.
Clever Hans was a horse that could do arithmetic and answer yes/no questions.
Even its owner was convinced - truly - that the horse did it.
All the horse was really doing, of course, was picking up on cues from its owner. Asked "what is 3 + 4?", the owner would show relief after Hans stomped his hoof seven times. So Hans stopped stomping.
I have a big problem with Canada threatening Google with fines for what Google does outside of Canada.
This is a Canadian claim of extraterritorial power, which is inconsistent with the idea of sovereign nations not interfering in each others' internal affairs.
Unfortunately, current US law doesn't protect Google from that (so far as I know).
If it is indeed about "clear commercial fraud", that should be dealt with by a treaty agreement to mutually respect court decisions in limited and well-defined cases. Not with an extraterritorial claim.
The US is bad (very, very bad) about extraterritorial claims, too (anything re money laundering or drugs, for a start).
On the post: Supreme Court Has Another Chance To Help Take Down The Patent Trolls
Re: pretty much fucked
I mean, what's your point, AC? Things can't get better unless good people make an effort to improve them.
On the post: State Supreme Court Says Digital Cameras Can't Be Searched Without A Warrant
Re: how often is this being used to cover up bribes?
Marked "insightful".
On the post: Lawyer: Yahoo Lost Sec. 230 Immunity Because It Didn't Hand Over Personal Info; Court: GTFO
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The comments in the comments section were not.
Do you not see the distinction?
On the post: Appeals Court Agrees: Awful Patent Used To Shake Down Podcasters Is Invalid
Re: Re: Re: intermittent windshield wiper
My point being that 35 USC 103 is (and always has been) a dead letter, effectively ignored and unenforced by the USPTO. And, too often, the courts.
On the post: Appeals Court Agrees: Awful Patent Used To Shake Down Podcasters Is Invalid
Re: intermittent windshield wiper
And one I cite often to illustrate the insanity of our patent system.
The "invention" of the idea of running wipers slower. How can such a thing possibly pass the obviousness test?
Oh, right - there is no obviousness test.
But, he did win in court. And proceeded to shake down auto companies for their attempts to make safer cars.
On the post: Appeals Court Agrees: Awful Patent Used To Shake Down Podcasters Is Invalid
Re: grant multiple patents for the same thing to different parties
They do. That's the problem.
Some poor bastard invests his life savings and those of his friends and family into a startup to make something new, and gets sued into oblivion for his efforts by one of those parties.
Even if he has a patent of his own.
On the post: Company Storing Families' Personal Data Blocks Users/Researchers Informing It Of A Security Flaw
Can't fix stupid
This security flaw is so simple, so obvious, that no competent developer would have ever done it that way in the first place.
The problem is that nobody at Kids Pass had enough brains. So it's not surprising that when confronted with a problem their instinct is to hide it and bury their head in the sand.
You just can't fix stupid. You can only try to avoid it.
On the post: Asset Forfeiture: Killing Criminal Organizations With $16 Seizures
Re: sad
It's "normal".
The US is becoming a "normal" country.
On the post: Court Rules Temporary Ban Of Facebook Commenter By Gov't Official Violates The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: It cuts them off from what has been shown as a direct line
You can mail the guy a letter, but he doesn't have to open it - he has the right to toss it in the trash when he sees who it's from.
I don't see a Twitter block as any different.
A Facebook ban, which prevents other people (who might want to see the post) from seeing things, is different.
On the post: E And J Gallo Sends Cease And Desist Trademark Notice To E And B Beer
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why "big money"?
If you're correct, and if the courts don't address the justice of that via assignment of costs, etc., then this is a condemnation of far more than the PTO and trademark law - it's a condemnation of our entire legal system.
But I don't know if you're correct.
On the post: E And J Gallo Sends Cease And Desist Trademark Notice To E And B Beer
Re: Re: Why "big money"?
How much does that add up to, realistically? A couple hours a month?
That doesn't strike me as "big money" for a business of 10 or 20 people. And at some point either there will be a resolution or Gallo will give up (esp. if they're getting bad publicity, which they are).
Am I not getting something? Why does this guy think he can't fight this?
On the post: E And J Gallo Sends Cease And Desist Trademark Notice To E And B Beer
Re: Re: Re: Rewards...
One way or another, clients pay.
On the post: E And J Gallo Sends Cease And Desist Trademark Notice To E And B Beer
Re: Rewards...
But awarding double or triple costs...yes.
On the post: E And J Gallo Sends Cease And Desist Trademark Notice To E And B Beer
Why "big money"?
I know there a lot of lawyers here at Techdirt.
Can somebody please explain why fighting and winning this requires "big money"?
IANAL (as I've amply demonstrated in the past). But surely there is some process for adjudicating this dispute before the PTO.
Why does that process, in a simple case like this, require "big money"? I find it hard to imagine it would require more than a few hours for a competent trademark attorney to draft a document disputing Gallo's claim.
So - what? $2000? Is that "big money" for a brewery?
Somebody please explain.
On the post: The FCC Insists It Can't Stop Impostors From Lying About My Views On Net Neutrality
Re: why not "the other side" as well?
Sadly, this is probably the most insightful and practical response.
It's likely the only way to get the FCC to address the issue.
Altho, my understanding is that that process the FCC is supposed to follow is to address the content of the comments, not their number.
That is, it's not a vote - how many people repeat the same position, or make the same points, isn't supposed to matter.
Instead, the agency is supposed to address each unique point raised in comments. So that the technocrats can consider those points in making their wise decision.
Ha.
On the post: Court Says Gov't Has To Do More Than Say It Doesn't Believe The Property Owners If It Wants To Keep The Cash It Seized
Re: Rights Violators
Clever Hans was a horse that could do arithmetic and answer yes/no questions.
Even its owner was convinced - truly - that the horse did it.
All the horse was really doing, of course, was picking up on cues from its owner. Asked "what is 3 + 4?", the owner would show relief after Hans stomped his hoof seven times. So Hans stopped stomping.
A famous case.
Police dogs? Same? Who can prove otherwise?
On the post: Zillow Still Doesn't Get It: Second Letter About McMansion Hell Is Still Just Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Fair Use Proposal
(I've spent a lot of time around those parts...)
On the post: Zillow Still Doesn't Get It: Second Letter About McMansion Hell Is Still Just Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Fair Use Proposal
What you're saying amounts to "de Maistre didn't really say that". I agree there.
But that doesn't mean the misquote doesn't convey some truth.
I think nations do tend to reflect the character of their inhabitants.
On the post: Canadian Supreme Court Says It's Fine To Censor The Global Internet; Authoritarians & Hollywood Cheer...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We need a law
I have a big problem with Canada threatening Google with fines for what Google does outside of Canada.
This is a Canadian claim of extraterritorial power, which is inconsistent with the idea of sovereign nations not interfering in each others' internal affairs.
Unfortunately, current US law doesn't protect Google from that (so far as I know).
If it is indeed about "clear commercial fraud", that should be dealt with by a treaty agreement to mutually respect court decisions in limited and well-defined cases. Not with an extraterritorial claim.
The US is bad (very, very bad) about extraterritorial claims, too (anything re money laundering or drugs, for a start).
But two wrongs don't make a right.
On the post: Zillow Only Kinda Backs Down From Dubious McMansion Hell Threats Following EFF's Engagement
Re: Zillow
The goodwill is appreciated, but she doesn't need permission for fair use.
That's the point of fair use.
Next >>