Comments on: Economics, Trolls, and Software Patentability Revisited

By: oiaohm

oiaohm — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:29:38 +0000

I forgot to mention the evil trap of Defensive Publishing IBM uses. And I do mean evil if someone thinks about putting a patent on top of them.

Number 1 a Defensive Publishing does not have to be like a patent that says all patents that it is based from.

So IBM registers a patent then registers 30 Defensive Publishings.

If you make the bad mistake of using one of IBM Defensive Publishings as a base to a new patent you have just screwed up you patent application by not including the prior patent. Also lot of cases not having an license to use the IBM patent either. It the IBM barbwire patent method.

Defensive Publishing with hidden patents really does cause trolls head aches. Idea that Defensive documents are wise to check is really foolish particularly if IBM starts doing there normal Defensive Publishings threw the Linux Defenders what one is a land mine. IBM head of IP transfered to the project kinda suggests traps will be placed for trolls trying to make new patents.

Yes lots of cases the is a IBM SUN or someone else patent that an open source Defensive document will be sitting on top of.

Yes same oiaohm. There is only one of me. Yes he found my real name I don’t hide it. I just like my handle more. Yes it does have meaning. I am not Linux Hater or Linux Hater Redux. More a person who has pulled them apart both there ideas. I have started my own battle ground because I am sick of the Myths around IT. I class Linux Hater Redux as left the building because his blog is locked from posting any new posts.

Dyslexia has kept me out the document writing game. If you follow my real world name you will see I have been around the open source world in different mailing lists and forums since 1995. oiaohm is my handle since 2001. First handle I found that is unique and I am sticking to it.

Reason I class Linux Hater Redux as left the building the blog is no longer taking new posts.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:11:12 +0000

The patenter makes a huge difference. To attack Free software is to anger many people and the holder(s) of MPEG patents does not suffer from GNU/Linux as much as some company in the northwest of the U.S. of [A]lmighty Software Patents. By the way, is that you? Regardless, welcome to the site.

By: oiaohm

oiaohm — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:58:50 +0000

“Defensive Publishing” has a major difference to prior art. Defensive Publishing in most IP systems must be searched before taking out a patent. Failing to search it you can be fined even force to pay back all legal costs in any attempt to enforce your patent. It is as bad as overlapping with another patent. Reason “Defensive Publishing” is exactly the same as an expired patent legally.

Prior art you can simply claim that you did not know of it and walk way never paying costs. This could be years of court time. Proxy want to cause havoc is going to love fighting over if or if not Prior art is valid questioning time stamps anything to delay it if they don’t care about there own death. Look at the SCO case.

Defensive Publishing has at least 1 date in solid stone. The date it was Published. So if a patent was issues latter than that the patent holder is screwed. Problem with prior art fight to remove patents they end up in Defensive Publishing storage anyhow without good descriptions.

At min a full blown Defensive Publishing document should be produced every time prior art is used to destroy a patent. So that prior art is on the recorded correctly.

Proxify patents is an really dangerous thing. If it ever gets linked up you are dead.

If you read the Linux Defenders leads point of view he will help Open Source developers to take out Patents and Defensive Publishing.

If Linux Defenders forms into Linux Patent arm really it could become a large problem.

Trolls will always exist in the patent system Defensive Publishing slows them down.

Trolls are not Linux’s only issue Mpeg patents and others are also an major issue.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:54:01 +0000

One reasonable theory is that the United States will accumulate “IP” and then trade this with other countries that are exploitable. For example, a scenario might go like this:

Give us your oil and minerals and in return you shall have access to our protected “IP”, which means you can implement and use the progress bar [1], the tabbed browser, and receive life-saving drugs that cost just a penny to make.
___
[1] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.200-bar-to-progress.html

By: mike

mike — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:48:03 +0000

That linux defenders thing just seems pointless – you can’t beat the system one at a time.

All patents are really the issue, software patents are just more visible (more people understand software), easier to get, and more over-valued, but all patenting adds costs to consumers and reduces innovation. But unfortunately the law-makers are controlled by money, and `IP’ is big business for the US, so nothing will change – if not get worse as the US tries to shore up and protect itself from it’s own corruption.

By: G. Michaels

G. Michaels — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:29:36 +0000

Yes, it says “dark forces” and shows an image only to be associated with children’s cartoons. This is so corny that it’s hardly even funny.

I'm sorry - did you just criticize another website for using over the top terminology and corny images? Have you read or looked at your own blog lately? Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.