Twitter Gets Sued For Letting Famous People Interact Online
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
My brief reading of it seems to me that the patent is quite specific about categorising celebs into their "fields", it also talks about biographical details as a key part.
I think they are trying to force their patent to fit Twitters model, and it doesn't really fit.
Anyhow, that's how I read it too: all the independent claims seem to start with (a) selecting a field of endeavor and (b) compiling a list before doing stuff creating the community, which is not how Twitter works. If that's all there is, Twitter should ask the judge to sanction VS' lawyers for bringing a frivolous claim.
What's next, suing Apple because consumers can stick an iPad to their fridge therefore infringing on 'System and method for affixing a touchscreen to a refrigeration device'?
At this point most companies consider it cost of doing business; changing it could possibly weaken or remove the leverage they have with their patent warchest.
As expensive as the patent system may be, the largest companies who deal with it are still in a position to treat it like a basic cost of doing business; one that happens to be so high that it can protect them from the truly disruptive innovations that are unlikely to come from their peers in the field.
As long as elections are privately financed cartels that depend on trolls to scare off potentially competitive startups, the patent system is going to stay broken. If and when we manage to reduce lobbyists to mere lobbyists, and not lobbyist/financiers, then sanity may prevail.
Integrity.
I know we talk about the 24 hour spin cycle and how all politicians are just mouthpieces for the MPAA, but some of them probably take a few minutes out of their term to think about how to make the world a better place. A few of them even try to do so.
> Integrity.
You mean impeachment.
If the person who granted such a ridiculous patent was fired for negligence, maybe it'd motivate them to be a little more strict
A cursory browse will show that this is as expected: a wide-ranging patent that shouldn't have been granted in its submitted state.
I am not aware of constitutional amendments being used to invalidate patents. Although, if anyone has any links to such, I would be quite interested.
No demo, no patent.
Take a look at "VS Technologies" website here - http://www.vstinfo.com/index.htm. Looking at the source code it was built with Microsoft Frontpage 5.0 ... nice.