Read more.Quote:
Meanwhile Samsung takes its dispute with Apple to the ITC.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Meanwhile Samsung takes its dispute with Apple to the ITC.
Interesting comment in the FOSS Patents:
Am I missing something here - Google claims 1.4-6.1Bn$ and then Oracle says "no, we're wanting 2.6Bn$". But surely 2.6 is in the range "1.4-6.1" so Google's right (to an extent)?Quote:
It (Google) averred that Oracle's damages claims were in the range "between 1.4 and 6.1 billion dollars".
Oracle denies the range stated by Google and says the actual amount of its claims is $2.6 billion
I'm also less than impressed with the demand for a slice of ongoing ad revenues - this sounds like extortion to me. I really hope Oracle lose this one - otherwise who knows where they'll turn their Sauron-like gaze next?
Does complaining to the ITC ever achieve anything? It seems, to me at least, to be nothing more than an attempt to get Apple to "play nice" - perhaps drop the case in return for a reasonable (unlike Oracle) royalty check. (Not that I'm convinced that Samsung is infringing - but that's just my opinion).Quote:
It's Samsung's turn to escalate things, it seems, and it has filed a complaint with the ITC
If it is infringing a cut of future profits is exactly why Google will have to do. As patents are a time limited monopoly. The patent holder can licence any way the like (or in fact refuse to licence) and has a complete monopoly of the invention. If you don't like that your have to work around the patent or wait until it expires.
I personally think patents are THE most abused thing out there. The Idea of a patent was to protect someone coming up with an invention in return for them explaining how to use the invention is a way other experts can use, they are granted a limited monopoly on that invention. The problem most of the stuff out there could hardly be decided as "inventions" they are worded in a way that is almost impossible for even an expect to get anything useful out of. When someone "invents" the some something (which becomes sucessful), the are checked like cards to see if they can get a fit. Clearly the patent was not needed for the "invention", as it was invented separately without knowledge of the patent. Most use of patents being struck down for being "obvious" should be done, they are meant to be an INVENTION. Now a days they are more like someone putting up a fence, in the hope they can capture the land inside.
I agree. Patents were useful when patent expiration times weren't insane, and the invention had to actually be an invention. Nowadays you can US patent virtually anything, from management methods, to software algos, interfaces, genes, and hell, probably atoms if you find/construct new ones. Just put it in front of the clerk, and he'll stamp 'granted'.
I was bored the other day and looked at the instruction leaflet that came with a HDD desktop dock (it was a similar model to this: http://www.scan.co.uk/products/shark...ata-525-drives)
The leaflet confirmed that there was a patent held with regard to the HDD ejection mechanism - i.e. the button that you push that in turn pushes the HDD up out of the socket - i.e. a simple lever type arrangement. And that is apparently patentable?? :help: