JPEG now a patent violation?

[Yousuf Khan]

I guess we are well on our way to making civil litigation one of the big
revenue generation streams in many company's business statements.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15513

Yousuf Khan

 

[Rob Stow]

I guess we are well on our way to making civil litigation one of the big
revenue generation streams in many company's business statements.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15513

Yousuf Khan

Perhaps we need a "use it or lose it" clause in patent laws.

In other words, if a company wants to have patent protection
enforced for something then it has to insist on enforcement
of that protection right from day one. No more of this
jpeg and FAT16 type of crap where a company lets things slide
until usage of a patented product is widespread and only then
tries to claim royalties.

Put yet another way, if you something effectively becomes
public domain by a clear failure on the part of the patent
holder to enforce their patent rights, then that company should
lose their patent rights for that product.

 

[Stacey]

Rob Stow wrote:

Put yet another way, if you something effectively becomes
public domain by a clear failure on the part of the patent
holder to enforce their patent rights, then that company should
lose their patent rights for that product.

Trade marks are treated that way. If the owner makes no effort to enforce
their trademark, they lose the rights to it. This IP patent rights crap
especially the fat16, SCO and now JPG BS is totally absurd.

 

[KR Williams]

Perhaps we need a "use it or lose it" clause in patent laws.

In other words, if a company wants to have patent protection
enforced for something then it has to insist on enforcement
of that protection right from day one. No more of this
jpeg and FAT16 type of crap where a company lets things slide
until usage of a patented product is widespread and only then
tries to claim royalties.

Actually, there is. If you know of a violation and don't
prosecute you will lose your rights. This one is rather bizarre
though. Note the date. I believe it runs out in October this
year. It's also foolish on the surface, though I'll have to read
the entire patent (not to self: tomorrow).

Put yet another way, if you something effectively becomes
public domain by a clear failure on the part of the patent
holder to enforce their patent rights, then that company should
lose their patent rights for that product.

It does, if it can be proven the applicant knew of the violation
and did nothing to defend its use. "Submarine" patents are also
highly frowned upon these days. Patent law is stupid, but not
this stupid. ;-)

Then again, who know how stupid a court will be?

 

[flekso]

I guess we are well on our way to making civil litigation one of the big
revenue generation streams in many company's business statements.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15513

Yousuf Khan

Think what this planet would look like if Archimedes patented his stuff,
Newton, Einstein, Poincare...
You could fall of a chair and the patent police wouldn't let you hit the
ground until you payed your dues to Newton and all the damaged parties.
Who claims the right to 2+2?
Did they spend less time of their life inventing the wheel or volume
displacement than today (they lived shorter too)?

 

[Walt]

A patent needs to be constantly renewed over its possible
life time, and that costs money. Typically, if a patent doesn't
bring in revenue from the start, a lot of people will not spend
the money to constantly renew, and the patent "dies".

Also, just because one has a patent, doesn't mean it is
automatically enforceable. The Patent Office doesn't guarantee
anything. The Patent Office doesn't defend the patent either.

The patent itself is only one "stake in the ground". When one
goes to court to defend a patent (another costly endeavor and
rarely done on a patent which doesn't hold much worth), one
really needs to be ready to prove a LOT of things.

 

[RusH]

Trade marks are treated that way. If the owner makes no effort to
enforce
their trademark, they lose the rights to it.

are you sure ? Mandrake has anoter view on this subject after they got
sued.


Pozdrawiam.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

I guess we are well on our way to making civil litigation one of the big
revenue generation streams in many company's business statements.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15513

Yousuf Khan

Has anyone patented the word 'patent' yet?

 

[Stacey]

are you sure ? Mandrake has anoter view on this subject after they got
sued.

Well the courts don't have to follow the rules...

BTW has anyone else ever tried to use that trademark before and not had it
enforced?

 

[KR Williams]

Hi Walt!

A patent needs to be constantly renewed over its possible
life time, and that costs money. Typically, if a patent doesn't
bring in revenue from the start, a lot of people will not spend
the money to constantly renew, and the patent "dies".

Sure, but that's a relatively recent thing. Did you note the
"legal status" of this particular patent? It seems there is some
jockeying for profit going on here.

Also, just because one has a patent, doesn't mean it is
automatically enforceable. The Patent Office doesn't guarantee
anything. The Patent Office doesn't defend the patent either.

Of course not. Only the courts can determine ownership. That's
sorta our entire legal system. Asking the PTO do do anything
different is rather odd.

The patent itself is only one "stake in the ground". When one
goes to court to defend a patent (another costly endeavor and
rarely done on a patent which doesn't hold much worth), one
really needs to be ready to prove a LOT of things.

No issues here. One has to line up all sorts of ducks, with the
full knowledge that the other guy is loading his duck-gun (see:
SCO vs. IBM).

Again, the only question is how stupid a Jury can be. So far,
we've seen that they can be pretty damned stupid.

 

[KR Williams]

Has anyone patented the word 'patent' yet?

Pretty tough to do, since an expression cannot be patented, and a
word cannot even be copyrighted. ...nice try though.

 

[Walt]

Just a week or so ago, Ford learn that the hard way.

Ford stopped using the name "Futura" in the 1980's.
Ford wanted to start using that name again on a new
car they planned on introducing next year. However,
Pep Boys picked up, and now use the name "Futura".
Both are in the automotive industry.

If one doesn't actually trade using a registered trademark
for three consecutive years, they use their right to it.

Interesting, Ford also lost the right to the name "GT40"
a few short years ago the same way. I guess they never
learn.

 

[RusH]

and a
word cannot even be copyrighted. ...nice try though.

again .. Lindows ?
There isnt a thing that cannot be patented !

Pozdrawiam.

 

[Walt]

Are you sure that "Lindows" is protected by a copyright,
and not as a trade mark????

 

[Stacey]

Are you sure that "Lindows" is protected by a copyright,
and not as a trade mark????

You don't know what is going on with "linodows"? MS is claiming to own the
word "windows" and that lindows is too close and forced them (by multiple
world wide lawsuits) to not use it anymore.

http://www.linspire.com/lindows_michaelsminutes_archives.php?id=112

 

[KR Williams]

again .. Lindows ?

Lindows isn't an English word. It's made up.

There isnt a thing that cannot be patented !

Utter bullshit.