It's owned by Samsung but I don't think they'll use it. They've been in many law suits and most if not all companies suing them are infringing this patent. They could just counter-sue with this but they haven't.
Even if they sue some one for this I doubt a judge would take it seriously, but I don't live in the US so I guess anythings possible.
That seems to make some sort of sense but I don't think that's how it works. Judges have to enforce the law. They can bend and play with interpretations but there's a limit to that.
In these patent cases, they're supposed to figure out if the patent is not supposed, not questioning the validity of the patent when someone sues for patent infringement. There is a separate process for invalidating a patent, but the judge is supposed to assume that the patent is valid.
The courts are too far from where the problem is (laws, international treaties, patent offices) to be of much use.
money quote:
"""
Mr. Banner, who teaches law at the University of California, Los Angeles, is himself a sure-footed historian and a legal writer of exceptional grace and clarity. His evident love of baseball does not seem to cloud his judgment.
It would be hard to say that of Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, an avid fan. Called upon to decide a major antitrust challenge to organized baseball in 1915, he instead did nothing for a year, effectively destroying the fledgling league that had filed the suit and forcing it to settle.
The law would have required him to rule for the challengers, he later explained in open court, but he did not have the stomach to destroy a national institution. “I decided,” he said, “that this court had a right, if not a right a discretion, to postpone the announcement of any such order.”
"""
When the judge can openly admit that he sat on your case and bankrupted you because, while the law was definitely on your side, he didn't like you personally, there may be too much discretion.
This was some time ago - have judges been restricted since?
I read statements like this and imagine large companies playing a game like Pokemon or Magic: The Gathering, but instead of monsters they have patents.
"I choose you Patent of Phone which uses Glass!"
"I'm going to counter with the Patent of Electronic Things"
It all depends on how zealous their lawyers are. Or if they sell it to patent trolls, if they are in their normally litigious mood. They don't usually get to court, just the mere threat of litigation is usually motivation for the defendant to settle out of court for a tidy sum.
Prior art much? It's fascinating how the system feeds on itself and frivolous "inventions" are patented to protect companies from similarly frivolous claims (and also that the patent office grants them). Of course, none of this is new, but the issue continues to manifest itself and waste billions of dollars in settlements to frivolous litigation threats and to support the whole legal machinery associated with patents.
Patent US420420420: Water filled smoke cooling device.
A storage device that can hold water. A cylinder, square, or tube like structure that acts both as a pipe and transmitter of smoke and air into the water storage device. Another access/control point into the water storage for sucking. Storage device can be any water storing devise : vase, hollowed out pumpkin, yard gnome, etc. Device specialized for USPTO anxiety medication found in break room by Mario Cart.
The supporting graphics with the patent are ridiculously awesome. Nothing like an image that refers to "RAM", "ROM" and "Web Browser" as equal parts of input to clear things up.
Even if this was granted, it would be easy enough to defeat with prior art references from all over the place. Windows WMI management framework includes transport over http for example.
My first summer job in 1990 was with a company than had then contract (then) to digitizing all USPTO patent applications.
As a shipping clerk I got to see a lot of hair-brained patent apps. Picture a diagram of a shoebox decorated to look like a mailbox and the words "KIDDIE MAIL" scrawled on the side. Yeah, somebody was trying to patent that. Most applications were like that one--complete wastes of everybody's time and money.
Seems like we've replaced "Kiddie Mail" with "RAM" and "ROM" but not much else has changed, except, presumably, the volume.
I tried to read the patent summary with an open mind, but that was some convoluted phrasing. I have idea what claims they are making beyond that a web server and terminal devices are involved, and some information is used to do something.
[updated]
BTW, reading the "getting started" doc for "SmarTrhu Workforms" provides a clearer picture of what Wokforms are:
Software is inherently modular - the whole point is to combine and produce unique configurations that might produce business value. The USPTO likens this to an invention, but its really more the like creating a unique looking house - and obviously you can't patent the act of making a house.
Patents, and their abstracts, are written in very particular language, that was originally meant for mechanical devices and configurations. It's law + engineering, basically.
34 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 57.3 ms ] threadAt least the priority date only goes back to 2006, so hopefully there's plenty of prior art.
This is plainly bullshit.
PS: Of course also printers, but I feel like that is what they were actually trying to patent. Which is bullshit too, though.
That seems to make some sort of sense but I don't think that's how it works. Judges have to enforce the law. They can bend and play with interpretations but there's a limit to that.
In these patent cases, they're supposed to figure out if the patent is not supposed, not questioning the validity of the patent when someone sues for patent infringement. There is a separate process for invalidating a patent, but the judge is supposed to assume that the patent is valid.
The courts are too far from where the problem is (laws, international treaties, patent offices) to be of much use.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/books/the-baseball-trust-b...
money quote: """ Mr. Banner, who teaches law at the University of California, Los Angeles, is himself a sure-footed historian and a legal writer of exceptional grace and clarity. His evident love of baseball does not seem to cloud his judgment.
It would be hard to say that of Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, an avid fan. Called upon to decide a major antitrust challenge to organized baseball in 1915, he instead did nothing for a year, effectively destroying the fledgling league that had filed the suit and forcing it to settle.
The law would have required him to rule for the challengers, he later explained in open court, but he did not have the stomach to destroy a national institution. “I decided,” he said, “that this court had a right, if not a right a discretion, to postpone the announcement of any such order.” """
When the judge can openly admit that he sat on your case and bankrupted you because, while the law was definitely on your side, he didn't like you personally, there may be too much discretion.
This was some time ago - have judges been restricted since?
I don't know.
"I choose you Patent of Phone which uses Glass!"
"I'm going to counter with the Patent of Electronic Things"
It all depends on how zealous their lawyers are. Or if they sell it to patent trolls, if they are in their normally litigious mood. They don't usually get to court, just the mere threat of litigation is usually motivation for the defendant to settle out of court for a tidy sum.
I remember the good ole days, when that phrase had meaning.
Yes in theory. In practice, it all depends on how much the parties want to lawyer up, and not settle out of court.
As a shipping clerk I got to see a lot of hair-brained patent apps. Picture a diagram of a shoebox decorated to look like a mailbox and the words "KIDDIE MAIL" scrawled on the side. Yeah, somebody was trying to patent that. Most applications were like that one--complete wastes of everybody's time and money.
Seems like we've replaced "Kiddie Mail" with "RAM" and "ROM" but not much else has changed, except, presumably, the volume.
[updated] BTW, reading the "getting started" doc for "SmarTrhu Workforms" provides a clearer picture of what Wokforms are:
http://www.samsung.com/au/newsletters/dealers/october08/pdfs...