Goober’s Comments

• May 29th, 2015 @ 9:32am

  Re: Re:

  on Rosie O'Donnell's Ex Accuses Her Of Copyright Infringement... For Posting Photos Of Their Daughter To Instagram
  You beat me to it.
• May 29th, 2015 @ 9:31am

  Re:

  on Rosie O'Donnell's Ex Accuses Her Of Copyright Infringement... For Posting Photos Of Their Daughter To Instagram
  Incorrect. The photographer, even if you pay him, still owns the copyrights to the pictures he takes. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary (such as in work for hire), the person hiring/paying the photographer does not own the pictures or their copyrights.
• Feb 27th, 2015 @ 11:44am

  Re: Bad article

  on 532,900,000 Reasons Why We Need Patent Reform Now
  Sorry about the incorrect quotes and other miscellaneous typos. Stinks that a person can't edit his message.
• Feb 27th, 2015 @ 11:42am

  Bad article

  on 532,900,000 Reasons Why We Need Patent Reform Now
  Clearly you aren't a patent attorney. Maybe you should stick to writing about things with which you are familiar. You said, "[Smartflash] "has been awarded $532,900,000 from Apple, despite everyone happily admitting that Apple came up with the idea on its own.
  
  Sounds to me like the patent system worked. This isn't copyright law where independently coming up with a work is good enough. It's about patents. It's about first to file on an invention.
  
  You've implied one of the stupidest things I've read coming out of your writings--that you think a patent should be invalid based on a newcomer's financial (or otherwise) success of a product that is based on a third parties prior IP.
  
  I have no problems necessarily with what you suggest. I work for a large corporation and there are a ton of patents out there that are held by small inventors that can't really commercialize their inventions because they don't have the money or the connections. To scoop those up for free, make the product successful and then say the patent was invalid would be a huge boon for the company.
  
  So yes, please continue advocating for big business. It helps line my pockets.
• Oct 4th, 2014 @ 2:28pm

  Re: Those are lines, not grooves... (as RB)

  on Design Patent Granted... On A Toothpick
  Bingo! Although I'll take some exception to the nominally functional part not being eligible for design patents. We (my employer) do it pretty often and other companies as well. Check out the design patent for the Mach Razor blades.
  
  I don't know what this Masnick person's credentials are, but he must have a graduate degree in generating controversy for no reason.
  
  A quick read of the file history at the USPTO website on the Public PAIR system shows that color drawings (along with a petition to accept) were submitted because color is an integral part of the design patent.
  
  So no, it's not about grooved toothpicks. The author is an idiot wanting page views.