Steerpike’s Techdirt Profile

steerpike

About Steerpike




Steerpike’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 30th, 2015 @ 8:54am

    (untitled comment)

    This sort of design patent should be ineligible under 35 USC 171. You can't get a design patent on an image, for example (a print, or a painting, or something like that, in and of itself). But as soon as computer UI elements are claimed along with the computer, they become allowable. It's bad policy.

  • Dec 30th, 2015 @ 8:52am

    Re: Re:

    The slider is functional in and of itself, but the design patent only covers the look of it. You could get a design patent on the handle of a hammer, for example. You aren't patenting a hammer, but the look of your particular hammer.

    Still, this should be ineligible.

  • Dec 11th, 2015 @ 11:09am

    (untitled comment)

    Yeah, hopefully this won't survive a motion for summary judgment. Trade Dress doesn't look anything alike and Trader Joe's isn't using the registered trademark.

  • Oct 5th, 2015 @ 3:41pm

    (untitled comment)

    Patent attorneys have to have a technical background. They're usually engineers, but are also chemists, biologists, physicists, etc. They know what integers are. This sounds like a legal argument that was thought up well after the fact to try to distinguish the language in the patent, and not a very good argument.

    As noted in the post, you can define your own terms in a patent application. But you have to be explicit about what you're doing, and that you're not using the term in its ordinary sense. Also, you have to be explicit at the time you FILE the patent application, because the patent specification has to have a clear statement that you're redefining a term. You can't even do it a couple of months later when the patent is already pending.

  • Sep 17th, 2015 @ 12:44pm

    Re:

    Yep. He could even run into some trouble at the trademark office, because for a 1(b) (intent to use) filing, you have to affirm that you have a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce. His public statements appear to demonstrate that he never did.

  • Sep 17th, 2015 @ 12:38pm

    (untitled comment)

    He should set up an account on one of those online sites where you can sell shirts, hats and stuff with custom wording or logos on them. Just keep the store active so that anyone who wants can order shirts from him with the registered names.

    I suspect that even if he is only able to stop other people from selling shirts with just those names on them, the school won't be happy about it :)

    The school will still probably have the name of the actual institution in its use (maybe dominant, maybe not), so an infringement case still might be hard to sustain, but if the school knows that it also can't stop him selling shirts and other apparel with the name on it, doesn't that reduce the value to the school?

  • Jan 16th, 2015 @ 9:43am

    Re:

    I wouldn't call it a cop-out. It's just a statement of the law. The Constitution is a document intended to define the boundaries of government power. In general, some kind of "state action" is required if you want to bring a Constitutional claim.

    But just because something isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it can't be addressed. We have federal law for that (that's why we have the Civil Rights Act, for example; if you discriminate in your business on the basis of race you aren't violating the Constitution, but you are violating Federal law).

    I agree we shouldn't tolerate it, but the fact that it isn't a Constitutional issue doesn't mean we have to tolerate it. We need Federal legislation in place that addresses these matters.

  • Dec 22nd, 2014 @ 7:51am

    Re: Re:

    Same here. I haven't had cable TV for over four years now. It's not a problem for me.

  • Dec 2nd, 2014 @ 3:34pm

    (untitled comment)

    I agree with the vast majority of the criticism of St. Louis and STL County police in handling not only the Rams incident, but the whole Michael Brown case.

    But this post is a bit bizarre, in that there is no threat from the police to look the other way if the Rams are threatened, and I don't even think that was a reasonable interpretation of what was said.

    The guy goes from the First Amendment comment to talking about who it is who patronizes the NFL. Seems pretty clear the First Amendment comment was about no longer patronizing the NFL or its partners, an even encouraging others to refrain from doing so. The idea that it is a threat not to protect the Rams is a huge stretch...basically just creating a sensational blog post out of nothing.

  • Sep 26th, 2014 @ 12:31pm

    Re:

    Roca Labs can't violate anyone First Amendment rights because they're a private party and not the government. However, they're asking for government action here against the speech they don't like, and that has First Amendment implications.

  • Sep 26th, 2014 @ 12:31pm

    Re:

    Roca Labs can't violate anyone First Amendment rights because they're a private party and not the government. However, they're asking for government action here against the speech they don't like, and that has First Amendment implications.

  • Sep 26th, 2014 @ 8:45am

    (untitled comment)

    They need to start sanctioning attorneys who bring actions that they know, or should know, are unenforceable and basically just there to spend the defendant into submission.

  • Sep 17th, 2014 @ 9:27am

    (untitled comment)

    Haha. What's up with the ten foot long single piece of crime scene tape that doesn't block anything? People are crossing the street and walking on the sidewalk on the other side of it in the middle of the video.

  • May 8th, 2014 @ 1:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, that's right. They have to show those elements are present when they bring infringement claims, either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, which is probably going to be pretty limited in a case like this.

  • May 8th, 2014 @ 1:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There won't be anything.

  • May 8th, 2014 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re:

    I don't think any judge has that kind of recourse.

    Part of the issue is, the patent examiner has to be able to support rejections with documented evidence (by and large) and the amount of time they have to spend on an application doesn't necessarily allow them to do everything they need. For this patent, since the claim is specific on things like ISO, f-stop, and ratio between light intensities, the patent examiner has to be able to point to that combination out there somewhere.

    On a positive note, even though the claim has some wiggle room built in, it's probably going to be fairly limited to the values stated.

  • May 8th, 2014 @ 11:48am

    (untitled comment)

    Here's the first claim of the patent, if anyone is interested:

    1. A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a white cyclorama;

    a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama;

    an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6;

    an elevated platform positioned between the image capture position and the background in the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward a subject on the elevated platform;

    a first rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the first rear light source positioned below a top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at an upward angle relative to a floor level;

    a second rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the second rear light source positioned above the top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at a downward angle relative to the floor level;

    a third rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the third rear light source further positioned adjacent to a side of the elevated platform; and a fourth rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in the lateral axis adjacent to an opposing side of the elevated platform relative to the third rear light source;

    wherein a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears white and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device;

    and the first rear light source, the second rear light source, the third rear light source, and the fourth rear light source comprise a combined intensity greater than the front light source according to about a 10:3 ratio.

  • Dec 30th, 2013 @ 6:15pm

    (untitled comment)

    Seems like this could be grounds for an appeal.

  • Nov 22nd, 2013 @ 11:09am

    (untitled comment)

    I guess the question is whether the film really is a derivative work, and if it is not, does that mean anyone can make a film adaptation of a written work without permission because film adaptations aren't derivative works?

  • Apr 12th, 2013 @ 2:04pm

    (untitled comment)

    Sometimes, I'm convinced there is some justice in the world. This is one of those times.

More comments from Steerpike >>