Wi-Fi patent troll hit with racketeering suit emerges unscathed
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
What you say could be true, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water until you've tried other ways first.
EDIT: This is also a technology issue. If patent offices had a better understanding of Wi-Fi and practical applications of public internet, a patent wouldn't be granted to Innovatio that would give them a legal position, and this circumstance wouldn't arise.
Keep the patent system, but educate the system on rapid technology advances. It's stale, but amendable.
Software patents != all patents
There are fields where R&D costs are astronomical, and patents are a barrier that allows this enormous amount of money to be spent.
Keep in mind that software patents are only a tiny slice of the whole patent pie.
While we are at it, let's disband the DEA and stop protecting the pharmaceutical companies' market from drugs we could be growing in our backyards.
Drugs != marijuana - the DEA's mandate extends well beyond that of policing pot use. There are plenty of chemical substances of substantial and extreme harm that are currently under the umbrella of the DEA and shouldn't leave it.
It's somewhat funny that this is in the same thread as "a small segment of patents are bad, specifically the patents I deal with personally, so let's dismantle the whole system", since your stance seems to break down to "some drugs are wrongly regulated, specifically the drugs I deal with personally, so let's dismantle the whole system".
The only drug enforcement we need is an FDA that ensures that what is on the label matches what is in the product itself, and that standards are set for guidance in their use.
If you want to worry about dangerous drugs being available on the streets you should start with alcohol and tobacco.
"There are plenty of chemical substances of substantial and extreme harm"
Care to actually name any?
Really, you are approaching drug policy from entirely the wrong angle. The DEA is a paramilitary agency, one that has the power to declare drugs to be illegal without any democratic process at all, and which has the legal authority to seize property and then use the proceeds from the sale of that property in its own budget. Thousands of innocent people have been killed by DEA assaults on civilian homes, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or just because of bad information from informants. Health and safety are, in practice, completely irrelevant to the DEA.
That the DEA works for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry is not in question anymore. The Obama administration released emails related to the healthcare bill that paint a clear quid-pro-quo picture: stronger DEA action against illegal drug imports and medical marijuana programs in exchange for pharmaceutical lobbyists supporting the bill.
"some drugs are wrongly regulated"
Almost all useful drugs are wrongly regulated. There is no recognition of the reality that recreational drugs will be used regardless of the law. This has not only led to a steady source of income for criminals, but also to terrible tragedies in the past. In the 1980s, several people who wanted to use heroine developed Parkinson's disease after a drug dealer attempted to sell a legal alternative, MPPP, but so accidentally produced poisonous MPTP, a Parkinson's-inducing agent (ironically, MPPP is now illegal; MPTP is not illegal, despite being one of the most dangerous substances a person can ingest). Recreational drug users have no way to know what dose or purity they are buying, nor even if they are actually buying the drug they expect, with only two exceptions: alcohol and tobacco.
So when a drug user goes to the doctor, what can they say? "I have been ingesting a white powder some criminal sold me. I think it is cocaine." That does not promote public health by any stretch of the imagination; by contrast, an tobacco user can tell their doctor about their habit in a way that is useful: "I smoke a pack of cigarettes each week," or perhaps, "I smoke a cigar once every 4-5 months." When some guy is found nude in the woods after having used something labeled "bath salts," we really have no way to know what happened -- did he overdose on MDPV, or was it just a lot of caffeine, or perhaps some drug that we have never seen before?
"let's dismantle the whole system"
You make it sound as though the system established by the controlled substances act has some merit or utility. In reality, it is a system without any constructive purpose at all, which serves only to inflate the profits of certain well-connected corporations, to serve the interests of police and prison guard unions, and to give the government a way to continue to oppress certain minorities despite clear laws protecting people from such oppression. The controlled substances act also gives the executive branch tremendous power, allowing the creation of new prohibition law without an act of congress; this power was recently used to ban several synthetic cannibinoids and MDPV. The executive branch can also overrule the DHHS and FDA recommendations on drug scheduling, having famously done so for MDMA.
So unless you can point to something useful the DEA and the controlled substances act have accomplished, I see no reason to assume that disbanding a combination law enforcement agency, intelligence agency, and paramilitary force would be a bad thing. Repeal the CSA and replace it with sensible regulations on drugs and constructive policies that promote human health, and you'll have pushed society forward.
http://www2.piratpartiet.se/an_alternative_to_pharmaceutical...
I don't think it's software versus non-software, but really just a matter of how high the bar is set to actually obtain a patent. If you can obtain a patent for any random thing a competent person could come up with in an hour, then there's no utility to be had in making the invention public.
When patents work well (and I'm sure they do in many cases), people will want to search for patents that cover what they're trying to do, because if they find anything good, it'll save them a lot of effort to license the patent rather than invent things from scratch.
Imagine having a really hard software problem, and searching the patent database for something that could help. In an ideal world, you might run across something useful, contact the patent holder, and work out a licensing arrangement. In our world, you're unlikely to find anything good, and if you do, the holder is unlikely to be willing to license it to you fairly. Meanwhile, there's a good chance of coming across a stupid patent that applies to what you're doing, that doesn't tell you anything you couldn't come up with on your own, but that you now would owe triple damages for if you used it, because it's willful infringement now that you know about the patent.
In short, the patent system can be useful, but the system must ensure that patents are only awarded for inventions that deserve it. If you can somehow pull that off, I think the whole question of whether it should be possible to patent software would more or less go away.
Honestly it'd be both simpler to rouse interest for, and simpler to argue for, a total repeal. The squawking would be louder, but the final result would throw the ball back into the troll's court - to sneakily extend something is a lot easier than to re-implement it when it has been scrapped entirely.
Because that's the sort of nonsense being inflicted upon computer scientists.
Greedy, despicable and morally bankrupt, yes.
But why should this be surprising when the people who pass the laws are mostly members of the group that gets rich either way.
I don't intend to be mean, but you should really try to avoid seemingly partison statements like that unless you make them less vague, more relevant and add citations. It's not simply that your statement isn't true (you didn't specify enough for it to be one way or another), it's that it amounts to just spouting cynical minutia.
It gives people an excuse not to listen to your point if you tag a bland political statement on to an otherwise substantial point.
That's not saying I agree or disagree with the view, I'm just neutrally defining it.
I'm not saying he is a member or even ideologically agrees. That's just the position implied in that statement.
Is it? "The government is corrupt and incompetent so they should stay out of it" is a basic conservative/libertarian position.
I think a lot more people would agree with conservatives in principle if they weren't so hypocritical and corrupt in practice. You hear the occasional lip service regarding the poor or power imbalances reinforced by government policies, but they never seriously advance policies that would do anything about it, and any time they actually propose or enact anything specific the result is usually the complete opposite of that. Cue the old saw about Republicans believing the government is corrupt and incompetent and proving it every time they're elected.
Why do I not share it? The same statement, with the same reasoning, could be made about tort reform. And yet now when you look at voting records, Republicans are the ones you'd associate the issue with.
Ah, but you say that the statement as provided implicitly mentions large corporations as a problem? Yet concern about the power of large corporations is not a uniquely Democratic issue. For instance Rand Paul has taken a pretty strong stance on the issue. d As a generality, most Americans are happy to say that most politicians are corrupt and reflect the vested interests of those who brought them to power. And this unanimity lasts exactly until you ask them about the politicians that they voted for.
This keeps cases real and amounts realistic.
The real issue is that since corporations don't have the same responsibilities as real people, they shouldn't have the same rights.
But it also means, I wont probably get sued for opening a door to a woman.
I doubt that person can go against big corporation without money(good lawyers cost). And when one can afford good lawyer who has real chance of winning, then the person usually has also money for paying.
This is only when there is claim or civil suit. You can still go to police if there has been a crime of some sort. Also you can always file complaint to government. So no, this is not so unequal as it sounds.
In case, one is sure of its winning, he or she can always take loan from the bank. It just keeps nonsense cases away.
I realize there are plenty of rants against these practices available to read in many forums, but given the progression of this case, what options are available to the defendants?
Validity of patents requires research, even if you think they are "valid" it doesn't mean they are really valid. If prior art exists - the patent can be busted. But research requires time and resources, and that's where pooling can help if you have many interested parties united.
This doesn't help the societal problem, but unless you're a well known company and/or have very deep pockets, your best bet is to just ignore the letters.
> A few days after Holderman's order came out, Innovatio lawyers filed a lengthy series of notices regarding the dozens of hotels it is preparing to ask for a "default judgment" against, which suggests those hotels haven't yet defended themselves against the infringement allegations. Now there's a hearing approaching next week, on February 21, and Innovatio has put the hotels on notice that it intends to ask for judgments against them of $5,000 each.
This is a disgusting abuse of the legal system and current patent laws. It puts innovation in jeopardy by way of stagnation - small businesses won't offer WiFi as much if they know they can be sued by a company that has no practical connection to the technology. And if it isn't used as much by as many entities, how will it improve?
I think it's a joke that Innovatio bluffed not attacking home Wi-Fi as if it's an intentional "strategic position" like that. As if a single obscure company with flimsy title deeds on technology could really take away something so integrated from the public. They would have a reaction akin to SOPA.
Once the public is actually conscious that this issue exists, congress would be pressured to act in order to keep their voters happy.
Source: http://morrisjames.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cisco-systems...