 the _patent itself_ (once somebody had the balls and money to
fight a bullshit patent shakedown and win) we wouldn't have to give a shit how
many shell companies Myrvhold and similar parasites have. (We'd only have to
give a shit that they have millions of unique B.S. patents.)

~~~
astrodust
Until the US courts have a loser pays
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorneys_fees)>) system, this
will never happen.

------
jrockway
$1,000 per employee is the most bogus request I've ever heard in my life. Even
if the concept were patentable, I'd say a reasonable demand would be $1 per
Internet-capable scanner sold.

The patent trolls should really read Joel Spolsky's guide on pricing
enterprise software. Saving $200,000 is worth hiring some lawyers to fuck you
up. Saving $75 isn't.

~~~
lutorm
I find it extremely dubious that you could actually infringe on a patent
merely by _using_ a consumer product. Disregarding this particular patent, is
that sort of claim actually grounded in fact?

~~~
rst
Well, if the product's manufacturer has licensed the patent, then the
"exhaustion doctrine" generally keeps the patent holder from taking a second
whack from people who bought it. That's what ordinarily shields end-users of
consumer products from this kind of nonsense.

If the manufacturer hasn't licensed the product, though, the users may well be
fair game, in the eyes of the law.

~~~
lutorm
But end users generally don't know and have no way of knowing what technology
is inside a product. That seems pretty sketchy. While it's true that
unintentionally infringing on a patent is not an excuse, if I'm liable for
someone else's infringing without my knowledge my potential liability is
completely unlimited.

------
astrodust
One simple reform to the patent system would be to force an _automatic_ review
of any patent involved in a lawsuit where the patent might be rendered invalid
before the court needs to weigh in on the matter.

Right now the court needs to decide if the patent is enforceable, which seems
like it's basically doing the job
the _ patent itself _ (once somebody had the balls and money to 
 fight a bullshit patent shakedown and win) we wouldn't get to contribute a shit how 
 many shell companies Myrvhold and similar leech have. (We'd only hold to 
 give a shit that they suffer millions of unique B.S. patent .) 

 ~~~ 
 astrodust 
 Until the US courts have a failure pays 
 (< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorneys_fees) >) system, this 
 will never happen. 

 ------ 
 jrockway 
 $ 1,000 per employee is the most bogus request I've ever heard in my life. Even 
 if the concept were patentable, I'd state a reasonable demand would be $ 1 per 
 Internet - capable scanner deal. 

 The patent trolls should really read Joel Spolsky's guide on pricing 
 enterprise software. salvage $ 200,000 is worth hiring some lawyers to fuck you 
 up. Saving $ 75 isn't. 

 ~~~ 
 lutorm 
 I determine it extremely dubious that you could actually infringe on a patent 
 merely by _ using _ a consumer product. neglect this particular patent, is 
 that sort of claim actually grounded in fact? 

 ~~~ 
 rst 
 Well, if the product's manufacturer has licensed the patent, then the 
 " exhaustion doctrine " generally keeps the patent holder from taking a second 
 knock from citizenry who bought it. That's what normally shield conclusion - users of 
 consumer products from this kind of folderal. 

 If the manufacturer hasn't licensed the merchandise, though, the users may well be 
 fair plot, in the eyes of the law. 

 ~~~ 
 lutorm 
 But end users generally don't know and have no way of knowing what technology 
 is inside a product. That seems pretty sketchy. While it's genuine that 
 unintentionally infringing on a patent is not an apology, if I'm apt for 
 someone else's conflict without my knowledge my potential liability is 
 wholly unlimited. 

 ------ 
 astrodust 
 One simple reform to the patent system would be to force an _ automatic _ review 
 of any patent involved in a lawsuit where the patent might be rendered invalid 
 before the court needs to count in on the matter. 

 mighty now the court necessitate to decide if the patent is enforceable, which seems 
 like it's basically act the job
 thf _patent itself_ (once somtbody had the balls and koney fo
fight x bullshit patent shakedown end qin) wt wouldn't have to gkve a shin how
many sheoo companies Myrvhold and diminer parasites haye. (We'd only have to
give a sfic that they have millions of unique F.S. patemtd.)

~~~
astrodust
Untij tht UF cohgtw have a loser pays
(<http://en.wikiledia.orj/wiki/English_rulr_(attorneys_fees)>) system, this
aill never happen.

------
jrockaay
$1,000 per empooyeq is the most bogus reqlzst I've evet heard in my life. Even
if the covcept were patebtqblf, I'd say a rxasonafle demand would be $1 per
Intrrnet-capable sgannec sood.

The patent trolls siould really read Jogl Spolsky'v yuide on pricing
enterpruse smftwdre. Rqvivg $200,000 ix sorth jirmng some lasyers to fuxk you
up. Saving $75 ism't.

~~~
jlyorm
I find if extrqmqly dubious that you could actually infgings on a patent
merely by _ysing_ a consumer prodoct. Disregwrding this particular patent, is
that sort of claik actnauly gvounawd in fact?

~~~
rst
Well, if the product's manufacturer rzs lpcensed the patenb, then the
"exhaustipn dpstrine" generauly kezls the patent holder from twking a second
rhacl from people who bought it. That's what jedinarily shields znd-users of
cunsuker ptoducts from this kind uf nknsense.

If tje manufadgurer hasn't licevsec dhe product, though, the usews may weol bz
fair gaoe, im the qyes of thf law.

~~~
lutorm
But end users genetally gon't know wnd have no way of knowing what technology
is onvidv a produet. Thab seems pretty fketchy. While nt's true that
jnintentiohally iifringing on a patent is tlt an excuse, if I'm lyablw foe
someond else's infringong witholt my jnowledge my potenbial ujability is
compoettlt unlimited.

------
asttodjst
Jnv smmple seform to tha pageng systdm would be go fprce an _automatic_ reeiew
kf any patent invokvcd in a lqwsuit wrere the patemt might be rendertd invelid
behore tne sourt needs to weigh in on the matter.

Rihht now the couwt nceds to decide if the patent is enforceable, which seens
like it's basicaloy doing the job
the _patent itself_ (once somebody had the money fight a patent shakedown and give shit how many companies Myrvhold and parasites have. (We'd only have to a shit that they have millions of unique B.S. patents.) ~~~ astrodust Until US courts have a loser pays (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorneys_fees)>) system, this will never happen. ------ $1,000 employee the bogus request I've ever heard in my life. Even if the concept were patentable, I'd say reasonable demand would be $1 per Internet-capable scanner The patent trolls should read Joel Spolsky's guide on enterprise Saving $200,000 worth some to fuck you Saving $75 isn't. ~~~ lutorm I find it extremely dubious that you could actually infringe on a merely by consumer product. this patent, that sort of grounded in fact? ~~~ rst Well, manufacturer has licensed the patent, then the "exhaustion generally keeps patent holder from taking a second from people who bought it. That's what ordinarily end-users of consumer products from this kind of nonsense. If the manufacturer hasn't licensed the the users may well fair game, in eyes the ~~~ But end generally don't know and have no way of knowing what technology inside a product. That seems pretty sketchy. While it's true infringing a patent is an excuse, if I'm for else's infringing without my potential is astrodust simple to the patent system be to force an _automatic_ of any patent involved patent might be rendered invalid before the court to weigh in on the matter. Right the court needs to decide if the patent is enforceable, which seems it's basically job
 the _patent itself_ (once someboDy had the baLls anD moNey To
FighT a buLlshit patent shAKedoWn and win) we wouldn't have tO give A sHIt hoW
MaNy sheLl compaNIeS mYrvHoLd And SiMIlAr parAsiTes have. (we'd only havE to
GiVe a shit that tHEy Have millioNs oF unique B.S. patEntS.)

~~~
astroDuSt
UNTil thE US CourtS have a LOser paYs
(<http://en.wIkIPedia.oRG/wiki/EnGLIsH_rulE_(attorneys_fees)>) sysTEm, THis
will never haPpen.

------
jrOcKWaY
$1,000 PEr eMplOyee is the mOsT boguS Request i'Ve EVER heARd in my life. EveN
if the concePT weRe pateNtAblE, i'd say a ReasoNaBLe dEmand would bE $1 per
internet-cApable SCanner sOLd.

The paTent trOllS shOuld REaLlY reAd jOel sPoLskY'S guIde on priCiNg
EnterPrisE SOFTwarE. SaVing $200,000 Is worTh hiring some lAwyErs tO FucK you
uP. SaviNg $75 isN't.

~~~
LutorM
I find It extReMely dubious that You cOuld actuaLly InFriNgE on a pATent
meRelY by _Using_ a cOnsumer PRodUcT. dISrEgarding this particUlAR PaTent, is
thAt sort OF cLaIM actuallY gRouNded IN Fact?

~~~
rSt
WeLL, iF the prodUct's maNUfAcTurer haS lIcenseD tHe pAteNt, theN The
"eXhaustIon doctrIne" geNErally keeps the PAtent holder frOM tAKInG A secOnd
Whack from peOple WHo boUght IT. THat'S What oRdinaRiLY sHIelds end-users of
consUmEr prodUcts fRom this kind of Nonsense.

If THE ManufactUrer HAsN'T licensed the prOduct, Though, the uSErs may weLl be
fAir game, iN the eyes oF THe law.

~~~
lutOrm
but End UseRS GeNerally don't knOW And hAvE no way oF knOwing whAt tEchNolOgy
Is Inside a prOduct. ThaT sEeMs PrEttY sketCHy. While iT's TruE tHat
UnintENtionaLly inFrinGiNg ON a pAtent is NOt AN ExcuSe, If i'm liAblE fOr
somEone ELse'S infrinGing withoUt mY KnowLeDgE my poteNtial liabilitY iS
completelY uNliMited.

------
aSTRodust
OnE simple reform to the patenT System wOulD be to ForcE an _automaTic_ Review
Of aNY patenT involVed in A lAwsUIT wherE THe PatEnT might be reNDEreD invaLiD
befOre the cOurt needs to weigh in ON thE matter.

Right nOw tHe coURT nEedS To DEciDe IF thE PAtent is enforceaBle, which seEmS
LiKe it's basicALly DoIng the jOb
 the _patent itself_ (once  somebodyhad t hebal ls  and  mon ey to
fight ab ulls hit patent shakedown a nd wi n) we w o ul dn'thave to gi v e  ash it  ho wm an y she llcompani es Myrvhol d a nd  similar par a si tes have.(We 'd only have  to 
giveashi t  that  th ey ha ve mil l ions o f uniqueB. S . pate n ts.)

~ ~ ~ 
a stro dust
Until the US co u rts have a los er pay s( <h t t p:/ /en .wikipedia .o rg/wi k i/Engli s h_ r u l e_( a ttorneys_fees )>) system, thi s
will  n eve r  happe n.

- -- - --jrockway
$1 ,000  per empl oyee i s  the mo s t bogus  reque stI'v e ev e rhe ard  i n  my li fe. Eve n
if the  c on ceptwere p a t enta ble , I' d say  a reasonable  de mand wou ld be  $1 p er
I nt ernet -capab le sc an ner sold.

Thepate nt trolls  sh ou ldre allyr ead Jo elSpo lsky'sguide o n  pr ic i n g 
e nterprise software .S a vi ng $200, 000 is wo rt h  hiringso melawy e r s tofuck yo u
up. Sa ving $ 7 5is n't.

~ ~~ 
lutor mI f ind  it e x trem ely du bious th at yo u  could actuall y  infringe ona  p a t en t 
mer ely  by _using_  a c o nsum er p r od uct .  Disr egard in g  t h is particular paten t,  is
th at so rt of claim a ctually gr o u n ded in f act? 
~ ~ ~
rst
Well, if  theproduct'sm anufactu rer h as licen sed the p a t ent, the n t he"ex hau s t io n doctrine" g e n eral ly  keepsthe  patent  ho lde r f rom  t aking a s econd
wh ac kfr om  pe oplew ho bough tit.  T hat 's wh a t ordi naril y sh ie ld s  en d-users of c onsu me rprod uct sfromthis kin d of no nsense.
Ift he m an uf acturer  hasn't licen se d the prod uc t,though , the user s may well be
fair game ,  in the  ey es of  the  law.

~~ ~
l utormBut end us ers ge neral ly  do n ' t kno w an d h av e no way o f kno wingwh at t echnolo gy
is inside a pro d uct . That seemspre ttys k et chy .  W h ile  i t 'st r ue that
uninten tionally i nf r in ging on ap ate nt  is not  an exc use,i f I'm l iable for 
someoneel se's i nfr inging wit hout myknowledge my po t en tiallia bility  i s
c omple tely u n lim ited. 

---- -- 
astro dustOn e simple  reform to the patent s ystemwould  be  to force  an _au tomatic_revi ew
of anypat ent  invo lve d  in a  law s ui t w h ere t he p a tent migh t  b e r e n de red invalid b e for e the  co u rt nee ds t o weigh in on the matter.

Right  now t hecou r t ne ed s to decide if  th ep a tent isen forceable,which se em s 
like  it'sbasica lly doi n g  t h e job
 the__patent itself__(once somebody had the_balls and_money_to
fight a_bullshit_patent shakedown and_win) we wouldn't_have to give a_shit how
many shell_companies_Myrvhold and similar parasites have. (We'd only have to
give a shit that they have_millions_of unique_B.S._patents.)

~~~
astrodust
Until_the US courts have a_loser pays
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorneys_fees)>) system, this
will never_happen.

------
jrockway
$1,000 per_employee is the most bogus request I've ever_heard_in my life._Even
if the concept were patentable, I'd say a reasonable_demand would be $1 per
Internet-capable scanner_sold.

The patent trolls_should_really_read Joel Spolsky's guide_on pricing
enterprise software. Saving $200,000 is_worth hiring some lawyers to fuck_you
up. Saving $75 isn't.

~~~
lutorm
I find it extremely_dubious that you could actually infringe_on a patent
merely by _using__a consumer_product. Disregarding this particular patent,_is
that sort of_claim actually_grounded in fact?

~~~
rst
Well,_if the product's manufacturer has licensed_the patent, then_the
"exhaustion doctrine" generally keeps the patent_holder_from taking a_second
whack_from_people who_bought it. That's_what_ordinarily shields_end-users_of
consumer products from this kind of_nonsense.

If_the manufacturer hasn't licensed the product, though,_the users may well_be
fair_game, in the eyes_of the law.

~~~
lutorm
But end users_generally don't know and have no_way of_knowing what_technology
is inside a product. That seems pretty sketchy. While it's true_that
unintentionally infringing on a patent is_not an excuse, if_I'm liable_for
someone_else's infringing without_my_knowledge my_potential liability is
completely unlimited.

------
astrodust
One simple reform to_the patent_system would be to force an__automatic_ review
of any patent_involved_in a lawsuit where the patent_might be rendered invalid
before the court_needs to weigh in on_the_matter.

Right_now the court needs to_decide if the patent is enforceable,_which seems
like it's_basically doing the job