6's Techdirt Profile


About 6

6's Comments comment rss

  • Apr 24, 2014 @ 11:42am

    more than technicalities.

    "While the issue of serving Megaupload is something of a technical snafu, it's one in a rather long line of sloppy lawyering by the DOJ throughout this case."

    Actually the inability to serve a foreign corporation is much more than a "technical snafu". It is an important protection for foreign corporations, just as we would wish our corporations be protected from other countries doing the same. You can serve individuals, but you cannot serve corporate "entities" as they are nothing but legal constructions of the state itself.

  • Jan 23, 2014 @ 10:41am

    Seems to me like he should simply sue the gov agency for assault when they took his glasses off of him. Likewise harassment. Then get several thousand dollars of settlement cash.

    And also he better call Saul!

    And he probably should have taken his glasses back and re took his seat when they asked him to come outside as he was not under arrest and lawfully present in the theater. Only once they deemed it necessary to arrest him should he comply.

  • Dec 01, 2013 @ 08:28pm

    Re: Re:

    Nah bro, there's all kinds of other arts. Eating utensils, motors, bicycles, brakes, glasses, cutting machines, molding machines, hair drying machines, the list goes on and on. And like I said, in the vast, vast majority of cases the examiner is quite familiar with his art.

    Pharma is by no means the vast majority of prosecutions.

  • Dec 01, 2013 @ 08:28pm

    Re: Re:

    Nah bro, there's all kinds of other arts. Eating utensils, motors, bicycles, brakes, glasses, cutting machines, molding machines, hair drying machines, the list goes on and on. And like I said, in the vast, vast majority of cases the examiner is quite familiar with his art.

    Pharma is by no means the vast majority of prosecutions.

  • Dec 01, 2013 @ 05:48pm

    "This is what really cheeses me about the patent system. One of the requirements for patent validity is that an invention be non-obvious to one skilled in the art. Yet at no point is anyone actually skilled in the art really involved in the decision making process. Sure, they can make various filings or be expert witnesses. But the final decision still always lies with an examiner, judge, or jury that more often than not has no idea what is sitting before them.

    That's not really the case in most of the patent prosecutions before the office. In the vast majority of prosecutions the examiner is experienced in his art. So much so that they are regularly called upon to help in classifying/searching for new inventions prior to other people filing for them. They're "experts" in that regard, because they spend all day reading about those arts, day in and day out for 30 years.

    That said, in some arts it is much more difficult to understand truly what you have sitting before you even if you are somewhat expert. Software and business methods are a couple like that. Generally this is because of the terminology often employed in the drafting of the claim. That is done intentionally by lawyers to game the system.

  • Apr 23, 2013 @ 06:31pm

    "Upstart helps them raise enough money to get their startups going, and in return, they pay their backers up to 7% of their future income each year for 10 years."

    That sounds illegal. The SEC has passed "rules" against this type of investing I had heard, because they are granted rulemaking authority under the law to regulate this type of investing. It is pretty much the same thing as offering to pay for someone to go to college and then have them pay you a precentage of their income. And that is definitely illegal under the SEC rules (though most people probably don't pay attention to that if they agree to do that scheme). I'm surprised that this is out in the open and the SEC hasn't shut them down.

  • Feb 22, 2013 @ 04:42pm

    Re: Re:


    It BETTTER ensures that the people that put their money behind the project (either a company or plain ol' joes like me and you) of making the item and brining it to market will either a. get the entire profits from whatever market there is for the item or b. get royalties from the competition that is also in that market for that item. Of course it is not complete assurance, but it does a better job than nothing.

    And of course it only really works for the useful arts, rather than say, a business method cooked up, or software "function" dreamed up.

    In any event, that was the theory behind Bayh-Dohl and supposedly it has worked out pretty well, especially in bio where for years federally funded inventions sat on shelves never making it to the marketplace because of the massive costs to a. make the product en masse and b. start up costs of the factory etc. and c. marketing, informing, clinical trials, etc. etc. Now of course many of those kinds of products are brought to market.

    I certainly don't think it is a perfect trade off, but it is the trade-off the government currently supports.

  • Feb 22, 2013 @ 02:06pm

    It will likely be too much Mike because of one thing. They still want the techs developed with Federal money to be commercially exploited as much as possible. And the truth of the matter is that patents do enable some otherwise not financially viable techs to be worthwhile.

    As much as it pains me to say, in the area of government/university funded inventions they all too often went unused, sitting on shelves after their invention and disclosure (even when not patented) not being of any use to anyone. That was apparently the reason for the Bayh-Dole act that enabled the inventors to keep the rights to themselves rather than assign them to the federal gov.


  • Aug 17, 2012 @ 02:40pm

    I have to say that if a poor person asked me to use my interwebs to attend a free harvard lecture I would let him.

  • Jan 31, 2012 @ 04:00pm

    I have a question. Why don't they just put money in their grant requests for some license fees/reasonable royalties in the event they are sued?

  • Oct 27, 2011 @ 12:04pm

    I think my uncle's old company had already developed such a light bulb, but the issue is that it costs more to make. They were selling them for 30$.

  • Oct 12, 2011 @ 12:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    " How many people do you know could look at a patent application with a claim including "the anhydrous Form IV crystalline modification of 1-(4-amino-6, 7-dimethoxy-2-quinazolinyl)-4-(2-tetrahydrofuroyl)piperzine hydrocloride" and make a colorable argument that it was patentable subject matter, novel, nonobvious, etc."

    Sht son, that's ez street. It's eligible because it is a composition of matter and presumptively there is some utility for it (just ask the inventor). It is novel and nonobvious because nobody has presented any evidence the contrary.

    I know you're feeling supar smart today youngen, and while the masses may be rtarded still some of their issues are meritorious regardless of their explanation of the issue.

  • Aug 31, 2011 @ 08:31pm

    What is the point between the bridge to alaska? Once they're in Alaska they still pretty much have to take a plane down to the states. I mean... you can do it by vehicle, but come on, who does that?

    From all of Russia's recent words it seems like they just want to encourage some illegal immigration from their country to ours lol.

  • Aug 31, 2011 @ 03:10pm

    " But there are possibly other forms of carbon that could be more sparkly -- if only they could be synthesized."

    What's that you say? If only there was someone who would and could and did invent a method of synthesizing them? I don't suppose you'd be willing to reward someone who did such a thing with a document granting them exclusive use of that invention for oh, say, 20 years or so, would you?

  • Aug 18, 2011 @ 09:51am

    Re: Re:

    No you could not have patented "it's a wonderful life" but because of a different statute than was used in this case. In your case we in the field would use 103. In this case they used 101.

  • Aug 18, 2011 @ 09:48am

    Re: Re:

    Because the applicant/patentee defines what the invention is, he says it is a CRM, and you can't just ignore what he said. At least that's the way it has been traditionally for some hundred years. Of course, if the court wants to change that tradition as well, then they should go ahead and say so.

  • Aug 17, 2011 @ 01:27pm

    Let me explain this case a bit better than Mike has above.

    There are 2 claims especially at issue. One is to a method. The other is to a "computer readable medium" (aka a cd, a harddrive etc). The court does the expected thing in invalidating the method claim as directed to a mental process that takes place entirely in the mind, aka a "mental process" which the court notes is a subset of "abstract ideas".

    However, in a surprising move, the court construed the claim to a CRM (cd etc. remember?) as actually being a claim to the method which the instructions supposedly on the CRM would cause a computer to do. The steps of this method were recited in the claim. The court then noted that the method was simply the same method as in the method claims and that they were going to consider the CRM claim a claim to a method for purposes of deciding 101. This right here is probably legal error.

    Nevertheless, the same result may be achieved, that is, the CRM claims may be invalidated, under the Bilski abstract idea analysis even without considering the CRM claims to be claims to a method.

    The chances of this case getting picked up for appeal to the en banc CAFC court or the USSC are kind of small, but I personally hope that it does get picked up. Personally I believe they should not have committed what I note above is likely legal error. Instead they should have invalidated the CRM claims under any number of other ways, possibly even using 101.

    As to why this decision happened, one must remember that there are different judges on the CAFC. 9 or 10 of them to be exact atm. Some of the judges like to rule a certain way, and others like to rule a different way. The people that decided this case are a different group of judges from another group of judges that would probably try to decide this case differently and possibly even hold the CRM claims patentable.

    On the other hand, pretty much all judges would probably invalidate the method claims. Although I personally do not comment on whether the claims are in fact valid or invalid, as that is a question for a court.

  • Aug 11, 2011 @ 07:49pm


    Also you guys can see my cool pic now

  • Jul 01, 2011 @ 06:41pm

    "basically guaranteeing that such lawsuits could only be brought where social networking companies wanted them to be brought."

    And what would be wrong with that?

    Not that I'm all for click through EULA's (indeed I think they should simply be banned outright in any form that they might be made to appear). But, if they are going to allow them to exist then I see no issue with twiter or whomever making their customers agree to bring patent cases in their home turf. Indeed, it seems like more companies ought to do this.

    It would be a great deterant to forum shopping.

  • Jun 30, 2011 @ 01:05pm

    Protecting the design of physical objects is the domain of design patents. Not copyright.

More comments from 6 >>