Patent trolls now account for 67 percent of all new patent lawsuits

[PC-NOOB]

Is Asetek a patent troll for kicking out H220

[Builder]

Is Asetek a patent troll for kicking out H220

No, it was in quite obvious violation of a device that they invented and patented.

 

A patent troll is an NPE that churns out and buys patents specifically for the purpose of litigating those that infringe upon them. Companies like Intellectual Ventures are patent trolls. Patent trolls do not make products, Asetek both makes products and licenses patents to other companies.

[TAK]

.

[PC-NOOB]

No, it was in quite obvious violation of a device that they invented and patented.

 

A patent troll is an NPE that churns out and buys patents specifically for the purpose of litigating those that infringe upon them. Companies like Intellectual Ventures are patent trolls. Patent trolls do not make products, Asetek both makes products and licenses patents to other companies.

 

 

I see

 

Thanks for teaching me that

[Builder]

Patents are patents, even if you deepfry them in baby fat. Same shit, different trolls.

And yes, it was SCO vs. Linux, it may have been with specific companies, but they were after Linux.

Linux cannot defend itself, it's not an entity. Call it what you want, but that's like calling it Apple vs Copycats. They weren't after Linux, as I've said before, they were after the GNU GPL.

 

Design patents do not define utility, they define ornamental elements of a design. Would you accept it if Apple put the Start menu icon from Windows 7 where Finder is right now? That's what a design patent would restrict.

[TAK]

.

[ericlee30]

Damn patent trolls

[Builder]

As far as I understood SCO vs. Linux was about Unix code in Linux, code that SCO claimed to owned, which was given away by IBM. So, not so much after the GPL, even tho that might have been a part of it. <tin foil hat> They were hired to do Microsoft's bidding </tin foil hat>

 

I know what you mean about design, I just don't deem any patents for such things as needed. TBH I never cared for "design" as I'm more of a function guy, so technically it wouldn't matter to me what the button looks like.

Well, there argument was that because of their contract with IBM they had not been notified that that was going to happen. It's SCO vs IBM, stop calling it SCO vs Linux. It doesn't make any sense, Linux can't defend itself in court, it's just a kernel.

 

SCO asserted that IBM had devalued their intellectual property by inserting their code into Linux, thus requiring that their code be redistributed publicly, because of the GNU GPL. 

 

Design patents are a whole other animal, in my opinion it's closer to trademarks for physical objects. I think it's valid, it's essentially what stops knockoffs from being made. Rounded corners are an essential part of their design, and at that metre and caliber yes, it's infringing to make rounded corners. You can easily circumvent it by creating a different angle at which to make your rounded corners, but Samsung doesn't do original, they follow Apple. (see gold S5, hastily implemented fingerprint reader) 

 

I don't really care if you make a device with rounded corners, (and neither would the USPTO I imagine) but why you need to make them with the exact same angle and rate of curvature as on iPhones and iPads etc I can't fathom, unless you're trying to copy the iPhone .

[jmaster299]

The entire legal system for filing lawsuits in the US needs to be changed. Patent trolls are just a drop in the bucket when it comes to negative economic impact. Health care in the US is outrageously overpriced not because of actual health issues, but because of the asinine malpractice insurance policies that both doctors and medical facilities have to carry. When a minor mistake can result in a lawsuit for hundreds of millions of dollars, it puts an unreasonable burden on medical professionals. Putting a cap on "pain and suffering" awards would fix a lot of that.

That cap on "pain and suffering" would need to be applied to all types of lawsuits. Some dumbass assumed the cruise control on his RV would completely control the vehicle for him, so he got up out of his seat and went into the back of the RV to make a sandwich. The RV crashed of course, and he was awarded millions of dollars, and a new RV, all because the owners manual didn't specifically warn him that he had to actually remain in the drivers seat and in control of the vehicle when using the cruise control. That lawsuit should have NEVER happened, but putting award caps in place would have at least lessened the financial impact on the company. A financial impact that gets passed on to the rest of their customers.

There are some local laws that attempt to fight back against bullshit lawsuits though. I don't know all the specifics, but there is a significant up front cost to anyone who tries to file a lawsuit in Nevada. It's to help fight against the constant frivolous lawsuits against all of the casinos. If you want to file a lawsuit, you have to put up several thousand dollars that gets entered into a trust fund with the court. If you lose your lawsuit, that money is automatically paid to who ever it was you were trying to sue in order to help cover their legal expenses. They can then come after you for more if that amount doesn't cover everything.

[Builder]

-snip-

You said the patent system was wrong, then went totally off topic. One might say you thought cruise control steered the car for you...

 

That is an urban legend, look at http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

 

It never actually happened. Also, the user manual is required to state things like that. It's like why the woman who sued McDonalds for spilling coffee on herself won. The coffee had given her third degree burns, they had been making it too hot. Even though it was her fault for spilling it, it was determined that she would not have been as gravely injured had the coffee not been too hot.

 

The problem we have with healthcare in this country is that a large group of people thinks that people's live should be left up to the market. Can't afford chemotherapy? Can't afford an appendectomy? Tough cookies. If you're that poor you deserve to die. 

 

That's the mindset they have, which is completely inappropriate. It gets to the point where you begin wondering if people should have to pay for healthcare at all. Should you have to pay money to keep yourself alive and healthy? Most other developed nations have decided no, which is why they have stronger welfare systems than we do. In turn, you don't get people begging on the streets nearly as much in Sweden and other scandinavian countries with similar welfare systems, and as a result your nation's life expectancy goes up and people are happier because they don't have to wonder whether their wallet can sustain the expensive surgery they're about to undergo.

[StingBull]

I suggest you research it before you come into my thread trying to get a rise out of me again

 

 

Say what? Did you put a claim in this part of the forum? Do we have to abide by your own rules because we are here now?

 

You are taking this way to personally, son. I suggest you take it easy or beat it.

[Builder]

Say what? Did you put a claim in this part of the forum? Do we have to abide by your own rules because we are here now?

 

You are taking this way to personally, son. I suggest you take it easy or beat it.

You don't have to abide by my rules, but that post showed a lack of research on two subjects. SCO vs Linux and what Apple's rounded corners patent actually meant.

 

I'm not taking it personally, I haven't brought any part of my person into this. We are discussing abstract ideas, not the people that do or do not support them.

[jmaster299]

You said the patent system was wrong, then went totally off topic. One might say you thought cruise control steered the car for you...

 

That is an urban legend, look at http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

 

It never actually happened. Also, the user manual is required to state things like that. It's like why the woman who sued McDonalds for spilling coffee on herself won. The coffee had given her third degree burns, they had been making it too hot. Even though it was her fault for spilling it, it was determined that she would not have been as gravely injured had the coffee not been too hot.

 

The problem we have with healthcare in this country is that a large group of people thinks that people's live should be left up to the market. Can't afford chemotherapy? Can't afford an appendectomy? Tough cookies. If you're that poor you deserve to die. 

 

That's the mindset they have, which is completely inappropriate. It gets to the point where you begin wondering if people should have to pay for healthcare at all. Should you have to pay money to keep yourself alive and healthy? Most other developed nations have decided no, which is why they have stronger welfare systems than we do. In turn, you don't get people begging on the streets nearly as much in Sweden and other scandinavian countries with similar welfare systems, and as a result your nation's life expectancy goes up and people are happier because they don't have to wonder whether their wallet can sustain the expensive surgery they're about to undergo.

No, I did not go off topic at all. I made the point that the entire legal system for filing lawsuits in the US is broken. That is directly related to the issue of Patent Trolls. I simply gave examples of how the legal system is broken beyond just the issue of Patent Troll lawsuits. Also, the case of the RV lawsuit is actually based on a law school class practicing mock trials, taking possible real world scenarios to be debated in litigation. And no, car manufactures are NOT required to put that bullshit into owner's manuals. Stupid warning like that ONLY exist because some moron was allowed to sue a company for their own stupidity. Like the gigantic warning on a box of rat poison that says "DO NOT EAT", there is no reasonable justification where a person needs to be told not to eat poison, and the warning only exists because some idiot did eat it and sued.

The McDonald's coffee lawsuit comes down to an issue of what's called "percentage of liability". It was not McDonald's fault that she put the coffee in her lap, but it was McDonald's fault for serving coffee that was at an excessively high temperature. McDonald's assumed a percentage of the liability, or blame, because of that excessively high temperature and the fact that the excessively high temperature resulted in the woman suffering from a more serious injury than she would have if the coffee had been a more reasonable temperature. 

Your comments on these issues prove that you are as clueless as most people on the issue. You make the asinine comment of "If your that poor you deserve to die.", but had you actually read what I wrote, you would know that the cost of health care is inflated due to a broken legal system. Yes there are other factors, but frivolous lawsuits, and lawsuits with unreasonably high award totals directly impact the cost of health care. The same legal system that allows people to demand tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars in "pain and suffering" is the same broken legal system that allows Patent Troll lawsuits to be filed.

Changing the Patent system does nothing to change a legal system that broken on a massive scale. It's that legal system that needs to be fixed more than anything else.

[Builder]

-snip-

If you had read my entire post you would have realized that I wasn't actually saying about poor people what you assert I was saying. I was using it as an example of what universalized healthcare opponents say and how heartless they actually are.

 

You didn't say the RV was a mock lawsuit, you mentioned it as a fact.

 

I don't think you realize that the RV company in that company does assert responsibility for educating people on what cruise control does and does not do. Granted, these days the outcome may be different, because cruise control is often a required portion of the driving test, you'd most likely be arrested and thrown in jail for reckless driving.

 

Back then, people didn't know how cruise control worked. You'd get drivers who were already licensed but not taught what cruise control is. The guy at the dealer might have said "it drives the car for you" and if it didn't say in the user manual that cruise control only controls the gas, then the manufacturer would absolutely be at fault.

 

And while it may seem common sense to you, what you have to remember is that law does not work off of common sense. There is a law that requires labels be put on rat poison, it's not just because some idiot sued. 

 

What alternative would you propose? That's what I'm interested in.

[jmaster299]

If you had read my entire post you would have realized that I wasn't actually saying about poor people what you assert I was saying. I was using it as an example of what universalized healthcare opponents say and how heartless they actually are.

 

You didn't say the RV was a mock lawsuit, you mentioned it as a fact.

 

I don't think you realize that the RV company in that company does assert responsibility for educating people on what cruise control does and does not do. Granted, these days the outcome may be different, because cruise control is often a required portion of the driving test, you'd most likely be arrested and thrown in jail for reckless driving.

 

Back then, people didn't know how cruise control worked. You'd get drivers who were already licensed but not taught what cruise control is. The guy at the dealer might have said "it drives the car for you" and if it didn't say in the user manual that cruise control only controls the gas, then the manufacturer would absolutely be at fault.

 

And while it may seem common sense to you, what you have to remember is that law does not work off of common sense. There is a law that requires labels be put on rat poison, it's not just because some idiot sued. 

 

What alternative would you propose? That's what I'm interested in.

I read everything you said, and you still are clueless as to how things work, and to the point I was making. No vehicle manufacture is in any way required or obligated to instruct their customers to not get out of their seat while driving. That's a basic fact that you learn while getting your license. You must remain in control of the vehicle at all times. Also, the big gigantic idiot proof warnings on things like rat poison are there either because of a lawsuit, or to reduce the possible risk of a lawsuit. All products like that have basic instructions, those instructions include things like wash your hands after touching and to not ingest the product. But the additional warning in giant print on the packaging is there because people are dumb enough to eat the stuff.

Because of our broken legal system, there are people who literally make their living off filing bullshit lawsuits. Both individuals and attorneys go out of their way to make money from the sort of crap that should never be allowed in a court room. I have family that works for MGM corporate legal in Las Vegas. I hear about the endless bullshit claims that people come up with in the hopes of a quick settlement. Little do they know that casinos never give in like so many other sucker companies do.

Hell, I at one time worked security for a timeshare resort here in Las Vegas and witnessed some of the crap myself. We had one old couple where the husband took a piss in one of the elevators and his wife helped him lay down in his own puddle of piss. When the elevator opened in the lobby the wife was screaming bloody murder that her husband slipped and fell in the elevator. They demanded something like $20,000 for the promise that they wouldn't sue. We showed them the surveillance tape and detained them for the cops and pressed vandalism and extortion charges against them. But it's a situation that would have never happened if people didn't know that companies are constantly afraid of being sued for outrageous amounts of money.

As far as the alternative I would propose, had you actually read what I said you would already have your answer. As I said in my previous posts, there needs to be caps put in place for "pain and suffering claims". When someone is injured, the money they are awarded is most often broken down into 3 categories. Medical expenses (current and ongoing as necessary), lost income if the injury results in time away from work or permanent disability, and pain and suffering. The first 2, medical expenses and lost income are legit amounts of money that can be easily calculated by the court. The last one, pain and suffering, is 100% subjective and the main factor beyond the totally unreasonable amounts of money that people sue for.

Getting your finger cut off is not worth tens of millions of dollars in "pain and suffering" but that's what people demand and frequently get awarded. Even in a case where the party being sued is 100% at fault, like when an innocent person finally gets freed from prison. Yes they should get paid, but they should never be allowed to file lawsuits for obscene amounts of money. Like one recent case in Ohio where a man was wrongfully locked up for two months. He has since filed a $100 million dollar lawsuit. There is no reasonable justification for that lawsuit to even be allowed for that amount of money. Even if he had been locked up for 20 years, $100 million dollars is abusive and by itself should be a criminal act.

Or the judge, yes a judge, who sued a dry cleaner for $65 million dollars over a pair of lost pants. The dry cleaner made multiple settlement offers, one as high as $12,000, yet he refused them all. Again, over a pair of missing pants. The piece of shit should be locked up for wasting the courts time, yet it's common practice for these types of lawsuits to be filed on a daily basis around the country.

How about the guy that sued for $2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, that's two UNDECILLION dollars, over a dog bite. That's more money that exists in the entire world. Again, a lawsuit that should NEVER have been allowed to be filed. If caps are put in place, these sort of lawsuits start to go away. You'll never eliminate them completely, but when people know they can't demand what ever amount of money they want, and when they know they can't trick a jury into feeling sorry for them, fewer people will waste time with them.

The same applies to the patent troll lawsuits. Put tighter rules/regulations in place before being allowed to file a lawsuit, and they won't waste their time. One law change that would help in all cases would be to bar any plaintiff from demanding money from any company or person directly without first going through an evidentiary hearing, which is where the plaintiff has to provide proof of their claim to the court. That right there takes away the primary tactic that the patent trolls use to get money. They can file any lawsuit they want, against anyone they want, for any amount of money they want, and they rely on the fear of potentially higher legal costs to force defendants into quick settlements. "We filed a $10 million dollar lawsuit against you today, but if you pay us $25,000, we'll drop it and leave you alone." It's extortion on the most basic level.

For someone who has a legit case, providing that proof of damages is not an issue. If you were in a car accident there is everything from police reports to medical reports that prove you have a standing to sue. On top of that, with award caps in place, people won't be able to sue for unreasonable amounts of money.

[FratStar]

No, this is why patent TROLLS need to go away. Anyone that tells you patents need to go away is trying to undercut someone else with a patent.

Note that he said in the form that they are now. He didn't say patents need to go away.

[Builder]

-snip-

I don't argue with conservatives arguing for tort reform. Your posts just keep getting longer and longer in an attempt to sound intelligent and complex.

 

If you really supported healthcare reform, you would support universal healthcare.

 

This conversation is over.

[jmaster299]

I don't argue with conservatives arguing for tort reform. Your posts just keep getting longer and longer in an attempt to sound intelligent and complex.

 

If you really supported healthcare reform, you would support universal healthcare.

 

This conversation is over.

You may be done, but that doesn't mean I have to stop. I'll continue to post because there are other people here that can benefit from learning something by reading what I post. Even if you want to be ignorant and start labeling people just because they proved you wrong.

Universal Healthcare is like any form of socialism. It sounds great on paper, but in practice it ends up being a complete disaster. There is not one single country in the world that has a successful "universal" healthcare program. People in countries that have such programs constantly complain about how terrible it is. Everything from extremely long delays to be able to schedule an appointment with a doctor, often a delay of several months, to being denied access to treatments or medications because they are deemed to expensive by the government. 

What I proposed is not health care reform, I proposed bullshit lawsuit reform. Something that affects every aspect of a person's life, with health care just being one of the more serious things that it affects. Bullshit lawsuits, and unreasonable damage claims lead to higher costs for health care, food, cars, every type of insurance from medical to vehicle, travel expenses like airfare. An legal system that allows for abusive lawsuits affects all of those things and more. There is no reason to allow such a system to exist and it benefits no one other than greedy individuals who seek to exploit the system. A person does not need to be a liberal or a conservative to recognize that, but they do need some level of basic intelligence. So I guess it's not really your fault that you can't grasp that concept.

[Builder]

You may be done, but that doesn't mean I have to stop. I'll continue to post because there are other people here that can benefit from learning something by reading what I post. Even if you want to be ignorant and start labeling people just because they proved you wrong.

Universal Healthcare is like any form of socialism. It sounds great on paper, but in practice it ends up being a complete disaster. There is not one single country in the world that has a successful "universal" healthcare program. People in countries that have such programs constantly complain about how terrible it is. Everything from extremely long delays to be able to schedule an appointment with a doctor, often a delay of several months, to being denied access to treatments or medications because they are deemed to expensive by the government. 

What I proposed is not health care reform, I proposed bullshit lawsuit reform. Something that affects every aspect of a person's life, with health care just being one of the more serious things that it affects. Bullshit lawsuits, and unreasonable damage claims lead to higher costs for health care, food, cars, every type of insurance from medical to vehicle, travel expenses like airfare. An legal system that allows for abusive lawsuits affects all of those things and more. There is no reason to allow such a system to exist and it benefits no one other than greedy individuals who seek to exploit the system. A person does not need to be a liberal or a conservative to recognize that, but they do need some level of basic intelligence. So I guess it's not really your fault that you can't grasp that concept.

The way you called universal healthcare socialist means that my label was correct.

 

You can keep mouthing off, god knows I don't care, it's your right to make a fool of yourself. Not everyone here is inclined to believe those who don't provide evidence for their claims. Every country with universal healthcare has a longer life expectancy than we do and a higher standard of living and quality of life, so I really don't understand where you're pulling those facts from. They do smell a bit ass-like though.

 

I lived in a country with universal healthcare for 10 years of my life, coming back here it feels like the dark ages. It's an experience I think you would be well served by trying and it's certainly a nice escape from your couch with a laptop and 24/7 Fox News.

[looney]

Universal Healthcare is like any form of socialism. It sounds great on paper, but in practice it ends up being a complete disaster. There is not one single country in the world that has a successful "universal" healthcare program. People in countries that have such programs constantly complain about how terrible it is. Everything from extremely long delays to be able to schedule an appointment with a doctor, often a delay of several months, to being denied access to treatments or medications because they are deemed to expensive by the government.

Two words:

Nope & Netherlands.

[.:MARK:.]

You may be done, but that doesn't mean I have to stop. I'll continue to post because there are other people here that can benefit from learning something by reading what I post. Even if you want to be ignorant and start labeling people just because they proved you wrong.

Universal Healthcare is like any form of socialism. It sounds great on paper, but in practice it ends up being a complete disaster. There is not one single country in the world that has a successful "universal" healthcare program. People in countries that have such programs constantly complain about how terrible it is. Everything from extremely long delays to be able to schedule an appointment with a doctor, often a delay of several months, to being denied access to treatments or medications because they are deemed to expensive by the government. 

What I proposed is not health care reform, I proposed bullshit lawsuit reform. Something that affects every aspect of a person's life, with health care just being one of the more serious things that it affects. Bullshit lawsuits, and unreasonable damage claims lead to higher costs for health care, food, cars, every type of insurance from medical to vehicle, travel expenses like airfare. An legal system that allows for abusive lawsuits affects all of those things and more. There is no reason to allow such a system to exist and it benefits no one other than greedy individuals who seek to exploit the system. A person does not need to be a liberal or a conservative to recognize that, but they do need some level of basic intelligence. So I guess it's not really your fault that you can't grasp that concept.

Uhm, Scotland and Scandinavian countries?

[Builder]

-snip-

-snip-

Thanks for the support. We're not all as crazy as him in America.