There was at least one. They could have LEFT the count at 0-499 - intead of making it 1-499, meaning that there was at least one - and quite probably only one else they could have used 306-499 for example.
I don't see much success here. Airlines do not HAVE to offer any compensation at any time. Airlines are NOT in the business of moving people. Their product is TICKETS. It doesn't matter what happens after you buy your ticket! The only reason to offer comensation is to retain the customer for future flights. More customers fighting for this isn't going to help things nor is it likely to succeed.
Patents are designed to give a forced monopoly on a product or invention for a specified period of time to allow the inventor to profit from the invention - as a reward for their innovation.
Assuming this is the "Right" way to handle it (and the jury is seriously out on that): I don't think anyone should be able to assert an old patent when they have no invention based on the patent.
The "idea" is not what is designed to be protected. If it were, patents would not be publicly published, thus further protecting the idea.
Here's an unrelated idea.
Don't publicly publish the patents.
Then if two entities - even one very much later - submit very similar patents you can invalidate the original via "independent invention".
Thanks for the URL. As troubling as a Facetime charge would be - the OTHER stuff in this article - ap developers paying for bandwidth their users use - is even MORE troubling.
Wait - it might get better. If Apple challenged it and it survived and apple isn't being sued over it then Apple must have licensed it. That means Apple is helping to pay for Google to get sued.
Win Win
Software and business method patents should be disallowed and thrown out en masse. If it's a physical device that is marketed protect it from copying. Otherwise leave things alone.
Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying a transformative, improved work should be prohibited. It should not. A DIRECT COPY with or without Minor Modifications just isn't fair.
The PURPOSE (which has been PERVERTED) of the system was to protect my company which researched, created, produced and most importantly SOLD a gadget from being copied directly by someone who is just a copycat and did no innovation. The purpose is to SPUR innovation not stifle it.
The present system allows someone to "patent" and IDEA - an abstraction that isn't used as a product at all and isn't even produced and then profit from said IDEA by using the legal system. That STIFLES innovation. I'm not for that at all.
IF a company happend to patent something and then produced a product and for whatever reason discontinued production -- that patent should be up for grabs for at least a license that cannot be denied by the patent holder so that it can continue to be produced.
I think the solution to the problem is to disallow software and business model patents and only allow them on produced physical goods.
There should be some protection (counterfeit laws?) to protect a company that spends significant time in R&D then produces a product from direct copying or copying with minor modifications. This was the initial vision of the patent system. I agree that it is hugely abused and patents are not issued in a specific enough manner.
I expected a few flames from the post. I actually agree with Tech Dirt on most everything and find the blog enlightening and insightful. Even this post. I tried humor. Maybe it's why I'm not a comic. At any rate, the initial part was the "setup" and the "punch line" was the copyright issue. Why wouldn't a malware author go after an Anti virus company for copyright infringement? Illegal Activity? That aspect hasn't stopped some people in the past. It was meant to be slightly sarcastic and funny. Guess I missed the sarcasm tag.
It's a little more complicated than that. The truth is the commission is your price to get FAIRLY CONSIDERED on the MLS.
Standard commission where I am is 6%. Real estate agents don't highly consider the homes for sale at lower percentages.
While I can get on the MLS with a 1-2 percent commission the home won't be seriously considered.
This is CHANGING now that we have the aggregators showing the homes and people can find the homes faster than they can find a realtor.
The whole argument that the realtor is necessary for the inspections, offers, negotiation is specious.
I just bought a second home. I knew the seller and just drew up a simple for sale contract and took it to my bank and then chose a title company and they handled all the documents etc. It was inexpensive for the seller (Though there is still the title insurance scam) and it worked well.
I'd love to sell my other home myself. But the REALITY of the situation is that a realtor is presently a bonus convenience. I don't have to like it and I can certainly hope for a change in how things operate.
I'm (trying) to sell a home. What do realtors in my area do? Put it on the MLS. Then they wait. They wait for someone to have an interest. They make big noises about it getting on the aggregate sites (realtor.com, trulia, zillow) and that being a selling point. I've been through several companies - NOTHING differentiates one company from another. It's a scam. And I get to pay 6% of my selling price to someone who basically just inputs some data and WAITS.
There are ways to get into the MLS cheaper but realtors don't show these "low commission" homes.
So we sit here and basically pay a "tax" to get into the MLS so the home can sell. I'd love to be part of something BIGGER than the MLS that lets homes sell without paying this "tax". It is WAY out of line and this industry is RIPE for technological disruption. It can't happen fast enough for me.
We were eating breakfast and we had a little box of raisins. You know, the ones not marked for resale. So they didn't have any nutritional information on them. But they did have one of these QR Codes (Never knew they were QR before today). I used my phone to see if I could get the nutritional info - would have been nice if I could - but got an advertising site for sunmaid instead.
Anyway - they COULD be useful. But they usually aren't.
Techdirt is letting us mark comments as funny and insightful. How about letting us mark the original blog entries thusly? (Is that a word?). Anyway - I laughed all the way through this one!
I absolutely agree. The software is even FREE for distribution - no charge. The source is available. The only "problem" may be the fact that the source for the API's used in the Apple SDK are closed. Is that REALLY a problem with the GPL?
I don't think it's a fight apple wants to get into. So the easiest thing is to just remove the application. Sad but I can see where they would not want to assume legal liability for every application and developer.
Google is telling us something.
Flight Delay Compensation
ahem....
What to patents protect?
Assuming this is the "Right" way to handle it (and the jury is seriously out on that): I don't think anyone should be able to assert an old patent when they have no invention based on the patent.
The "idea" is not what is designed to be protected. If it were, patents would not be publicly published, thus further protecting the idea.
Here's an unrelated idea.
Don't publicly publish the patents.
Then if two entities - even one very much later - submit very similar patents you can invalidate the original via "independent invention".
Legal....
Re: Update
Re: They deserve it
Win Win
Software and business method patents should be disallowed and thrown out en masse. If it's a physical device that is marketed protect it from copying. Otherwise leave things alone.
Re: Re: Re:
The PURPOSE (which has been PERVERTED) of the system was to protect my company which researched, created, produced and most importantly SOLD a gadget from being copied directly by someone who is just a copycat and did no innovation. The purpose is to SPUR innovation not stifle it.
The present system allows someone to "patent" and IDEA - an abstraction that isn't used as a product at all and isn't even produced and then profit from said IDEA by using the legal system. That STIFLES innovation. I'm not for that at all.
IF a company happend to patent something and then produced a product and for whatever reason discontinued production -- that patent should be up for grabs for at least a license that cannot be denied by the patent holder so that it can continue to be produced.
I think the solution to the problem is to disallow software and business model patents and only allow them on produced physical goods.
Re:
Re: Re: I don't get it
I don't get it
Why is this on techdirt?
Did he enforce a copyright claim against AVG?
Thank God for Ronald Reagan
Re: Re: Real Estate RIPE for disruption
Standard commission where I am is 6%. Real estate agents don't highly consider the homes for sale at lower percentages.
While I can get on the MLS with a 1-2 percent commission the home won't be seriously considered.
This is CHANGING now that we have the aggregators showing the homes and people can find the homes faster than they can find a realtor.
The whole argument that the realtor is necessary for the inspections, offers, negotiation is specious.
I just bought a second home. I knew the seller and just drew up a simple for sale contract and took it to my bank and then chose a title company and they handled all the documents etc. It was inexpensive for the seller (Though there is still the title insurance scam) and it worked well.
I'd love to sell my other home myself. But the REALITY of the situation is that a realtor is presently a bonus convenience. I don't have to like it and I can certainly hope for a change in how things operate.
Real Estate RIPE for disruption
There are ways to get into the MLS cheaper but realtors don't show these "low commission" homes.
So we sit here and basically pay a "tax" to get into the MLS so the home can sell. I'd love to be part of something BIGGER than the MLS that lets homes sell without paying this "tax". It is WAY out of line and this industry is RIPE for technological disruption. It can't happen fast enough for me.
raisins
Anyway - they COULD be useful. But they usually aren't.
Funny and Insightful
Not for Export...
Not really "unknown"
Nullification
This jury could have come back with an award of $.01 per song. Nullifying the bad law.
Too bad they didn't know about nullification.
Re: Load of FUD from FSF, nothing more
I don't think it's a fight apple wants to get into. So the easiest thing is to just remove the application. Sad but I can see where they would not want to assume legal liability for every application and developer.
More comments from Pangolin >>
Pangolin’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt