This is the arrogance I'm refering to:
It's clear
Obviously, if you say so.
there are a select few of you
You canvassed everyone on this list and now speak for them.
who can't be reasoned with
Those who disagree with you must ipso facto be unreasonable.
as if we wrote the law
And you
I am more sympathetic to the argument that we should be sensitive to
the perhaps unjust constraints some of our colleagues have to work
around than I am to the more general suggestion that we should *all*
avoid exposure to patents. Avoiding exposure to information is, for
me, the antithesis of why
On Jun 9, 2008, at 11:16 PM, Kontra wrote:
And you did cite the specific *law* that specifically bans email list
participation. It's of course not a matter of legal disputation as to
what's reasonable or theoretical exposure, it's all automatically
presumed knowledge, which cannot possibly be
If you engage in patent discussion
Nobody's forcing you.
or read or hear about a patent that is
similar to anything you are working on and then don't *immediately* get your
IP or patent lawyers involved
Well, do so if you feel a need. Who's stopping you?
to make sure they provide you
So let me see if I understand things properly:
Let's say I work for Foobar Corp. and I absolutely hate my competitor,
Acme Corp.
Then I become aware of a patent that is highly relevant to the
business of Acme. (Foobar may not even own this patent)
All I have to do is find some e-mail
On Jun 10, 2008, at 1:21 AM, Kontra wrote:
I am completely sympathetic to the what-you-don't-know-can't-be-
made-into-incuplatory-evidence train of thinking.
Therein lies the issue: what-you-don't-know. Not being on a mailing
list that once in a clear blue sky may reference patents is no
So, you're suggesting not even highlighting new patents when they come
out that relate to or impact this field?
No more Hey, check out Apple's or Microsoft's new patent for [X]
comments?
On Jun 9, 2008, at 11:14 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
Seriously do people want folks to quit the
Wasn't there a suggestion earlier that if you're going to discuss
patent information you tag the message with [patent]. This would allow
those who want to skip to to flag the message on their mail server and
have it quarantined prior to getting to the mailboxes of those who
don't want to
At risk of becoming the voice of reason (something I'd never naturally
be accused of), this discussion is becoming much more bitter with the
sides becoming entrenched in their arguments.
For the sake of the myself (I can't claim to talk for the rest of the
list), who enjoys the light tone and
At the end of the day it is going to have to be the responsibility of the
subscriber to avoid these topics. There are simply too many potentially
problematic topics to manage proactively in a practical or foolproof way.
Especially in this environment.
This patent discussion is a perfect example.
Maybe this anecdote helps?
A recent client has asked me not to research certain products related to
what we are designing to preserve deniability of IP infringement. He
has asked his lawyers to thoroughly research the IP and be the people
who validate whether there is an issue or not. I can do
Folks,
The tone in this discussion has taken a turn towards the
unreasonable. Personal attacks such as the ones made here are never
acceptable in this community.
(I point you to our guideline on this subject: Flaming,
name-calling, insults, taunts, or other behaviors that inhibit the
free
On Jun 10, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Mark Hines wrote:
Does tagging a problematic email with a problematic topic tag in
the header make it any better? How many tags will we need? Where
does it end? And finally, would you bet your legal health on my
listserv tagging diligence?
Well, we don't
On Jun 10, 2008, at 10:11 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel wrote:
Well, we don't need to tag everything — don't go overboard here and
use some common sense. This is obviously a sensitive topic and one
that would warrant such a workaround. So, where does it end? Well,
for now it could end w/[Patent].
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Todd Zaki Warfel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, we don't need to tag everything — don't go overboard here and use
some common sense. This is obviously a sensitive topic and one that would
warrant such a workaround. So, where does it end? Well, for now it
going forward?
Susie
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Hines
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:53 PM
To: IxDA Discuss
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] iRise sues Axure for patent infringement
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Todd Zaki Warfel
On Jun 6, 2008, at 6:05 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
On that note, I think this may need clarification. If by discuss
this you mean the business, practitioner or philosophical issues
and at high level, about one company suing another over tools some
designers use and need for their work, I
On Jun 9, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Christopher Fahey wrote:
But Jared? Dan? Do you guys really avoid ever looking at patents,
avoid discussing them at conferences or on blogs? Not even, for
example, Nokia or Apple's widely-discussed gesture patents, or
Apple's planned human interface devices?
On Jun 9, 2008, at 6:19 PM, Dan Saffer wrote:
But once I started working in the software and hardware world, it's
a whole different ballgame. Intellectual Property is taken seriously.
100% correct. And as the web people evolve back to the where the
future digital game is going to be
I assure you if I walked into the lawyer's offices over at Google, Yahoo,
Adobe, Microsoft, or pretty much any major Silicon Valley company and
informed them that people were discussing and posting patents on it, this
distribution list would *lose* every single one of those people as a
I'm concerned that nearly everyone seems to be looking at this from a
parochial perspective.
I live in the United States, but a huge percentage of this list does
not. It's not necessarily a given that everyone cares about US
patent infringement or the threat of civil suits, whether they work
On Jun 10, 2008, at 12:08 AM, Kontra wrote:
I assure you if I walked into the lawyer's offices over at Google,
Yahoo,
Adobe, Microsoft, or pretty much any major Silicon Valley company and
informed them that people were discussing and posting patents on
it, this
distribution list would
On Jun 9, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Christopher Fahey wrote:
For those concerned about the legal ramifications of exposure to
competitors' patents, the best solutions seem to be:
1) Quit the list.
2) Quit your company (or client).
Oh, that's just silly.
There's lots of stuff we don't discuss
It works like this:
Anyone can sue you for anything. The opposing lawyer's job is to make
your life as miserable as possible. Heck, they will try to go on a
fishing trip even if you were not involved in the design at all. This
is news to you? They can go through your corporate email, all manner
On Jun 9, 2008, at 10:21 PM, Kontra wrote:
I would when your corporate convenience doesn't trample upon the right
of others to discuss issues they deem important, and when the
arrogance with which this has been presented here is reconsidered.
It's clear there are a select few of you who
I'm a bit new to this whole thing... I thought the discussion was to alert
people who used a tool they bought with reasonable expectation that it was
legitimate to use, that it was being threatened by a lawsuit. Frankly, I
didn't bother with the specific patent info because that is way beyond me.
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Dan Saffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 6, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Will Evans wrote:
removing oneself from the list is absolutely part of the solution options
Why would any one of us have to bow out to discuss this. It's ludicrous.
Last I checked - even with
Hi,
The lawyers have briefed us as well that it's just better not to know,
and not to search for patent related information while developing
anything. Hazy, nasty, and quite sad matter of state, but that's how
it goes over here at least.
Hmm, that's just sad. Maybe it's the world that
Here is the patent in question:
http://tinyurl.com/3mvrls
and an earlier patent that they also own:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=hrmAEBAJdq=7,174,286
I think those patents were filed around 2004, and I really wonder if
such tools never existed in some form before that time. Maybe some
On 6/6/08, Alexander Baxevanis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and an earlier patent that they also own:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=hrmAEBAJdq=7,174,286
I think those patents were filed around 2004, and I really wonder if
such tools never existed in some form before that time. Maybe
We as a community can simply say we shall not stand for this.
We are the ones, as customers, with power. we can let them know.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Fred Beecher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/6/08, Alexander Baxevanis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and an earlier patent that
I have already sent emails to iRise (being a customer), as well as left two
voice mails. I have/will use both based on my needs - but this thing iRise
is doing is simply not right.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Nancy Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How do we do that? I have been using Axure
I've served as an expert witness in several patent infringement cases and
have had the (sometime uncomfortable) experience of seeing the process
close-up.
It can be a very expensive and nasty process. The last case that I was
involved with went on for years and cost the companies millions of
What affect could this patent have on Adobe's Thermo? Is anybody from
the team currently reading the list? Narciso?
Jack
Jack L. Moffett
Interaction Designer
inmedius
412.459.0310 x219
http://www.inmedius.com
Things should be as simple as possible,
but no simpler.
-
I skimmed the '837 patent. It's VERY broad. It also cites an
unusually large amount of patent prior art (though its non-patent
prior art is CRAP, not at all surprising).
herewith the rampant speculation from a non-lawyer
If the examiner let it through with that amount of prior art cited
it's
Let's see...where have I seen this happen before...h. Oh, that's
right! Amazon patented the single click buy.
Let me be really clear about this, for those of you who don't
remember, Amazon patented something that was already in use by many,
but that was widely considered within our tiny,
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Vishal Iyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thats a great question.
From the iRise website (http://www.irise.com/patent/):
The invention covered by this patent is the use of a graphical,
drag-and-drop interface to allow non-technical users to define functionally
Speaking for the Board...
We haven't specifically discussed the issue. But really, it's not
so important what the Board thinks. Our only purpose is to facilitate
the community. If folks feel that this is important, let's use the
discussion board to discuss and recommend an action plan.
This is
The patent process is really complex for sure (though few will argue that it
doesn't need reform), but generally speaking- if someone invents a medicine
to cure a disease, shouldn't patents protect others from using the same
formula, but not prevent folks from creating other medicines to cure the
On Jun 6, 2008, at 7:15 AM, Alexander Baxevanis wrote:
Here is the patent in question: [removed]
and an earlier patent that they also own: [removed]
This has been discussed in the past before...
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take patent discussions to a sequestered list or
blog posting or
On Jun 6, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Dave Meeker wrote:
Really? You'd think as prototyping is a major part of experience
design, that this would be somewhat interesting to the community.
I'm sure it is.
You write your post as if you represent everyone.
I said some people. I thought I was clear
Andrei is perfectly correct here and the discussion of patents the
links to patents should not be discussed on IxDA. That should be a
strict policy. Discussion of a particular patent like this could open
members and companies on this discussion group open to treble damages
for willful
Apologies, I seemed to have posted in the 'yahoo! markteting
replies' while looking at the patent thread
My point is this; last time this came up I beleive Chauncey
highlighted the problems talking about patents. And here we are
again.
I feel its a relatively obscure issue that arises
On Jun 6, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Alan Wexelblat wrote:
I'm aware of the issues, but I'm uncomfortable with banning an entire
class of discussion from the entirety of the mailing list. Is there a
way to tag potentially risky messages so that people who cannot deal
with these things can filter the
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Opening them is not the problem. It's having their presence on your internal
email servers to boot. When you get lawyers asking for information, they
take everything to see what you have, because proving what you've
After some offline discussions, I want to clarify what I wrote
earlier.
1. IxDA isn't going to take a position in this dispute. As an
organization, we have no meaningful visibility into the issues, nor
do we have the resources to develop that visibility. Thus we are not
is a position to take a
My apologies for posting that link, the previous post was posted this
morning and only appeared on the thread a few minutes ago.
I did inquire and nobody is available to comment.
Me thinks this is going to be a very delicate operation.
Mario
On Jun 6, 2008, at 3:34 PM, Alan Wexelblat wrote:
I'm aware of the issues, but I'm uncomfortable with banning an entire
class of discussion from the entirety of the mailing list. Is there a
way to tag potentially risky messages so that people who cannot deal
with these things can filter the
Josh
3. Both the organization and some of our members could be exposed to
unpleasant legal consequences as a result of this discussion.
Therefore, we ask that those interested in continuing this discussion
do so offline, on one of your blogs perhaps, or in some other forum.
It's not clear to
On Jun 6, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Todd Zaki Warfel wrote:
No kidding. Banning any discussions on this list that have to do
with patents is just plain silly.
I just re-read everything I wrote today. No where in my messages did I
use the word ban. There are many viable solutions, and yes,
On Jun 6, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Will Evans wrote:
removing oneself from the list is absolutely part of the solution
options
Why would any one of us have to bow out to discuss this. It's
ludicrous.
Last I checked - even with the current administration - most of the
bill of
rights is still
This is neither a freedom of speech or a bill of rights issue. This is a
will-I-be-hauled-into-deposition-and-deposed-on-emails-in-my-inbasket
question.
Common Jared, this is exactly that. I state now that I have no skin in the
game - but I am gagged from talking about it? This is absolutely a
Nobody is gagging you about anything.
They are just asking for a no-patent-discussion zone. It's a matter of
courtesy.
Think of the discussion as second-hand smoke.
Jared
On Jun 6, 2008, at 6:54 PM, Will Evans wrote:
This is neither a freedom of speech or a bill of rights issue. This
is
This is a sensitive topic that I can't pretend to know much about. But no
one is saying you can't talk about it. As your IxD peers, they are simply
asking you to discuss it somewhere in order to help them avoid a world of
legal pain. Seems completely reasonable.
Jeff
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 3:54
Will you are over-simplifying freedom of speech to an extreme, but
I won't go there at all.
My previous gig was for a financial document management organization.
Our product allowed people to share documents around due-diligence
processes. The people involved were often involved in securities
I have to come down on Jared's side here. You can talk about it all
you want. You will not be hauled away in the middle of the night. You
will not be prevented in any way from saying anything you like. You
will not wind up in jail, and you will not be charged with anything
stemming from this
On Jun 6, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Dan Saffer wrote:
Even knowing the existence of a patent can be legally troubling.
Interesting. So how many of you completely avoid every tech news site
(e.g. Engadget), which regularly post news items containing not only
the title and basic summary of the
Yes, it's true that this is not a free speech or Bill of Rights
issue. However, it's being taken to ridiculous extremes. Are the
people who are trying to maintain plausible deniability also going to
claim that they never visit a news site? No news.google, no cnet, no
cnn? Because, you know,
Perhaps a solution for people who are concerned about tainted
inboxes would be to use the the web interface and turn off the list
mail. I use an RSS reader to track changes and comment via the
website, and find it to be very pleasant, and it leaves my inboxes
squeaky clean.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Are the people who are trying to maintain plausible deniability also going to
claim that they never visit a news site?
Or use a PC at a library? Or a friend's house? Or AOL or some other
proxy server? Or prove in the negative that they didn't access what's
otherwise publicly available? Etc.
On Jun 6, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Kontra wrote:
Are the people who are trying to maintain plausible deniability
also going to
claim that they never visit a news site?
Or use a PC at a library? Or a friend's house? Or AOL or some other
proxy server? Or prove in the negative that they didn't
people with law degrees already told us.
Are these the same people with law degrees who drafted RIAA's making
available strategy? Or a different set of legal merchants who peddle
the theoretical exposure = prior knowledge approach until it's
challenged?
Like I said, any sufficiently
62 matches
Mail list logo
