S. 23: Patent Reform Act of 2011
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-23
On May 29, 9:48 am, jacek jacek.ambroz...@gmail.com wrote:
The real culprit is the Patent Office...
The P.O. makes all this nonsense possible
On May 27, 7:08 pm, Nathan critter...@crittermap.com wrote:
Almost sure that if they were to patent for a time machine or perpetual motion
machine they would get ot.
On Jun 1, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Brian Conrad brianjto...@gmail.com wrote:
I bothered to read though the patent quite a bit and though I'm not a lawyer
I was struck by the language as if they
On Jun 1, 11:41 am, Felipemnoa felipem...@yahoo.com wrote:
Lodsys strategy may be to cause a lot of pain to google by going after the
developers. If a lot of developers start to complain they pribably think
that that may speed up negotiations in their favor.
Given the length of time it has
On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 11:45 -0700, Chris Lang wrote:
Does anyone have a link to the original patent? I want to see the
documentation and run it past my lawyer before I make any decisions or
comment on this. And really in my mind, that is the only one that
matters, what my contract lawyer
On 6/1/2011 2:48 AM, Craig White wrote:
Their licensing fees were purposely set low to
Apple and Google because those companies pay patent lawyers already
so there's no incentive for Lodsys to get into a protracted legal
battle that might invalidate their patent.
They didn't license the
Lodsys strategy may be to cause a lot of pain to google by going after the
developers. If a lot of developers start to complain they pribably think that
that may speed up negotiations in their favor. The real problem here is that
the patent was granted in the first place.
On Jun 1, 2011, at
I bothered to read though the patent quite a bit and though I'm not a
lawyer I was struck by the language as if they never really developed
anything but instead came up with a concept that they thought someone
else might try to implement in the future. Time has probably come
unless you want
On 6/1/2011 1:33 PM, Brian Conrad wrote:
Time has probably come
unless you want innovation to come to a halt to do a complete
overhaul of the patent system.
Preaching to the choir, though I think simply removing software from the
list of things that's patentable would be an easier battle than
Thanks very much, and yeah, that makes your head hurt to try to read that
one LOL.
Now it's time to pay my lawyer to review it. I have my contract lawyer on a
simple $50 a month deal just to review TOS agreements and things like this.
It is cheap, keeps me out of trouble when using API's like
On May 30, 11:45 am, Chris Lang chrisl...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone have a link to the original patent? I want to see the
documentation and run it past my lawyer before I make any decisions or
comment on this. And really in my mind, that is the only one that matters,
what my contract lawyer
Does anyone have a link to the original patent? I want to see the
documentation and run it past my lawyer before I make any decisions or
comment on this. And really in my mind, that is the only one that matters,
what my contract lawyer advises me to do. So my advice is do the same, seek
legal
The main patent at issue is U.S. Patent #7,222,078.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=7222078.PN.OS=PN/7222078RS=PN/7222078
On May 30, 1:45 pm, Chris Lang chrisl...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone have a link to
On 05/30/2011 02:15 PM, Technogasms wrote:
The main patent at issue is U.S. Patent #7,222,078.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=7222078.PN.OS=PN/7222078RS=PN/7222078
On May 30, 1:45 pm, Chris
The real culprit is the Patent Office...
The P.O. makes all this nonsense possible
On May 27, 7:08 pm, Nathan critter...@crittermap.com wrote:
On May 26, 11:01 pm, Al Sutton a...@funkyandroid.com wrote:
I guess if you really were worried about it, just use the Market features
to make your
Businesses figured out years ago they could game the Patent Office due
to its technical ignorance. This patent seems to be for a concept not
truly a machine or device that in total might be unique. Patents
shouldn't be granted for such obvious things. If you put a bunch of
programmers in
You can send letters to whomever you like claiming you own a patent that should
stop someone else distributing an application, it doesn't make it legally
enforceable.
I've had a couple of cease desist and a DMCA sent to me in the past, pointing
out that I'm not US based and that either the
On May 26, 11:01 pm, Al Sutton a...@funkyandroid.com wrote:
I guess if you really were worried about it, just use the Market features to
make your app unavailable in the US could be an easy solution.
Yes, I'd only offend 78% of my paying customers that way. ;(
In particular, the in-app
Patents regulate a target market into which someone sells, not a country of
origin.
He is selling it in Switzerland, and pays his tax to the Switzerland.
Lodsys will have to wait till he started selling it in the USA.
Best regards,
Paul.
--
You received this message because you are
18 matches
Mail list logo
