All (well some) of your hard disk technology are belong to us.
HDD Giants Sued Over Patent Violations : Read more
HDD Giants Sued Over Patent Violations : Read more
-
Multi-million dollar Cheyenne supercomputer auction ends with $480,085 bid — buyer walked away with 8,064 Intel Xeon Broadwell CPUs, 313TB DDR4-2400 ECC RAM, and some water leaks
- Status
What a disgrace; granted people should be recognised for their ideas, but suing companies shows greed more than anything.
.Better go buy some drives before the ruling 
.The patent system is ridiculous along with copyright laws by standards shown to the public in the 1990's with emerging computer technologies to consumers on an unparalleled level. Yes, both laws need to be revised and "modernized" without being as heavily unrealistic as they are now. Rambus is a perfect example of abusing patents when 90% of its money comes from licensing fees from hundreds of patents. How a business can exist and produce next to nothing for the industry and world in general, is beyond me. Same goes with the Big Four whom control almost all of this nations entertainment. Raping artists of their content while with record ticket sales in theaters blaming pirates for a crappy movie not selling.
AMD_pitbull
Distinguished
- Mar 6, 2010
- 132
- 0
- 18,680
See, this is what bothers me: All these comments attack someone who made a patten, yet was too poor to act when he got used and abused by these big companies. Insted of thinking "wow, these guys are dicks for not paying him anything for his idea while they profited HUGE off them" they think "wow, he's an dick for wanting money for his idea". This isn't like the recent Smartphone BS that a company patented something then sued anyone with it, this guy already had it!
Honestly, tell me what I'm missing, cuz, I really don't see this guy in the wrong at all. I see Seagate and WD. Sorry, but, that would be like you going out infringing on a crap load of ideas, then bitching about getting sued when you knew they were already protected.
Honestly, tell me what I'm missing, cuz, I really don't see this guy in the wrong at all. I see Seagate and WD. Sorry, but, that would be like you going out infringing on a crap load of ideas, then bitching about getting sued when you knew they were already protected.
dogman_1234
Splendid
- Oct 31, 2009
- 5,161
- 0
- 25,860
aznshinobi
Splendid
- Oct 19, 2009
- 8,772
- 0
- 31,460
spectrewind
Distinguished
- Mar 25, 2009
- 446
- 0
- 18,790
[citation][nom]AMD_pitbull[/nom]See, this is what bothers me: All these comments attack someone who made a patten, yet was too poor to act when he got used and abused by these big companies. Insted of thinking "wow, these guys are dicks for not paying him anything for his idea while they profited HUGE off them" they think "wow, he's an dick for wanting money for his idea". This isn't like the recent Smartphone BS that a company patented something then sued anyone with it, this guy already had it! Honestly, tell me what I'm missing, cuz, I really don't see this guy in the wrong at all. I see Seagate and WD. Sorry, but, that would be like you going out infringing on a crap load of ideas, then bitching about getting sued when you knew they were already protected.[/citation]
Don't be sorry. You're right!! [This guy really had it] > YUP!
He's not in the wrong. These are the kinds of very legitimate things the USPTO is designed to function for. It's very simple: Big company takes advantage of a development by a little guy, and little guy does not have resources to combat it, so big company wins. This is not the first time.
The only counter to this is of there is some sort of R&D covenant between this garage developer and the corporate body.
Examples like "Superdude777" are good ones of perpetuating ignorance. The company is liable to this guy. That's why it's a PATENT instead of a TRADE SECRET.
It would be more accurate for SuperDUD to make an argement against a company like RAMBUS over their lawsuit activity over the last 20 or so years.
The other people in here are speaking the consumer language based on the predictable outcome of higher prices and how a lawsuit will affect them. I hate the idea of paying the additional licensing fee as well, although it does not make it "right".
If the conditions of this article are true, this *inventor* is legally owed 20 years worth of a cut on whatever he invented (assuming a granted licensee to use the patent). It was new, it was novel, it was not a naturally occurring "thing". It is a machine (and possibly a process), both of which can be patented. He was issued a patent, and there is no known prior art. Period.
I'm no lawyer, just have a small amount of engineering law background...
I believe, for these corporations, the patent is valid for 20 years (terminating in 2017). I guess it was a gamble on whether or not this would continue undiscovered for the duration of the patent, not counting on things like terminal disclaimers, possible extensions, etc.
Don't be sorry. You're right!! [This guy really had it] > YUP!
He's not in the wrong. These are the kinds of very legitimate things the USPTO is designed to function for. It's very simple: Big company takes advantage of a development by a little guy, and little guy does not have resources to combat it, so big company wins. This is not the first time.
The only counter to this is of there is some sort of R&D covenant between this garage developer and the corporate body.
Examples like "Superdude777" are good ones of perpetuating ignorance. The company is liable to this guy. That's why it's a PATENT instead of a TRADE SECRET.
It would be more accurate for SuperDUD to make an argement against a company like RAMBUS over their lawsuit activity over the last 20 or so years.
The other people in here are speaking the consumer language based on the predictable outcome of higher prices and how a lawsuit will affect them. I hate the idea of paying the additional licensing fee as well, although it does not make it "right".
If the conditions of this article are true, this *inventor* is legally owed 20 years worth of a cut on whatever he invented (assuming a granted licensee to use the patent). It was new, it was novel, it was not a naturally occurring "thing". It is a machine (and possibly a process), both of which can be patented. He was issued a patent, and there is no known prior art. Period.
I'm no lawyer, just have a small amount of engineering law background...
I believe, for these corporations, the patent is valid for 20 years (terminating in 2017). I guess it was a gamble on whether or not this would continue undiscovered for the duration of the patent, not counting on things like terminal disclaimers, possible extensions, etc.
spectrewind
Distinguished
- Mar 25, 2009
- 446
- 0
- 18,790
[citation][nom]dogman_1234[/nom]First Software...now Hardware.Good job America, you just let other countries look smarter...[/citation]
You got it backwards. Very....backwards...
You got it backwards. Very....backwards...
spectrewind
Distinguished
- Mar 25, 2009
- 446
- 0
- 18,790
Seems to be a lot of people in here who will defend a corporation, in the wrong, because it will probably negatively affect purchasing prices.
This guy is owed compensation.
Lets throw this guy under the bus people! Right?
If you were granted a patent and had a legal right to defend it, what would you do if it were violated?
This guy is owed compensation.
Lets throw this guy under the bus people! Right?
If you were granted a patent and had a legal right to defend it, what would you do if it were violated?
[citation][nom]AMD_pitbull[/nom]See, this is what bothers me: All these comments attack someone who made a patten, yet was too poor to act when he got used and abused by these big companies. Insted of thinking "wow, these guys are dicks for not paying him anything for his idea while they profited HUGE off them" they think "wow, he's an dick for wanting money for his idea". This isn't like the recent Smartphone BS that a company patented something then sued anyone with it, this guy already had it! Honestly, tell me what I'm missing, cuz, I really don't see this guy in the wrong at all. I see Seagate and WD. Sorry, but, that would be like you going out infringing on a crap load of ideas, then bitching about getting sued when you knew they were already protected.[/citation]
It's called "Herd mentality". Don't get bothered, most americans don't "think" in the strict meaning of the word. They just "follow".
It's called "Herd mentality". Don't get bothered, most americans don't "think" in the strict meaning of the word. They just "follow".
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
The probel i have always seem to come across in such issues is the lack of places to be able to file a patent without huge costs involved given all the places that could be sued cause of it. I can understand wanting to check to see if something has already been made and patented to search for things need, cause its cost and time saver, as i think is a good purpose for it, cause why worry about more then you need to terms of making and keeping a business going?
It also put more of a burden onto consumers givent the companies gain more reasoning for control of product releases and cancelling. Which is wrong, also in terms of investors, and the market, it isnt so good, given that the prices are then raised to offset expenses to gain revnue in investments. And limiting jobs in the process and investment choices until a new product can be made or a deal on any settlements.
Cause in terms of say on things investors and companies usually get the most go, given consumers just buy the products or use them. Also given, on the side of bigger companies, patents are usually filed yrs ahead of time as well, but given times of these measures usually miss some part of use and loss to it as well. Given the times at all times really, increases patents to be filed.
Either way of such, alot dont matter in the end cause they still release products to sale to consumers for whatever reason to fit the needs or prior products.
Also in terms of of things put limitation of things due to the legal reasons of means to use such devices and hardware given patents, especially ones in patent but that arent even made yet. Which is crap cause once the money is there its gone and further debt is applied to whatever part of a company or persons and no gain out of any further developments given the rights of patents are also all over the place.
I think its more patent applicants need to do alot more as with the companies as well. Just getting there to do so is as much of a problem as either making the product or getting the filing of patent be used as intended for.
Lawsuits do affect consumers more then probably should, cause i know as one being a consumer, in terms of being able to find ways to consume has been a trick of trades within its self.
It also put more of a burden onto consumers givent the companies gain more reasoning for control of product releases and cancelling. Which is wrong, also in terms of investors, and the market, it isnt so good, given that the prices are then raised to offset expenses to gain revnue in investments. And limiting jobs in the process and investment choices until a new product can be made or a deal on any settlements.
Cause in terms of say on things investors and companies usually get the most go, given consumers just buy the products or use them. Also given, on the side of bigger companies, patents are usually filed yrs ahead of time as well, but given times of these measures usually miss some part of use and loss to it as well. Given the times at all times really, increases patents to be filed.
Either way of such, alot dont matter in the end cause they still release products to sale to consumers for whatever reason to fit the needs or prior products.
Also in terms of of things put limitation of things due to the legal reasons of means to use such devices and hardware given patents, especially ones in patent but that arent even made yet. Which is crap cause once the money is there its gone and further debt is applied to whatever part of a company or persons and no gain out of any further developments given the rights of patents are also all over the place.
I think its more patent applicants need to do alot more as with the companies as well. Just getting there to do so is as much of a problem as either making the product or getting the filing of patent be used as intended for.
Lawsuits do affect consumers more then probably should, cause i know as one being a consumer, in terms of being able to find ways to consume has been a trick of trades within its self.
catchercradle
Distinguished
- May 27, 2009
- 54
- 0
- 18,630
I am on the side of the small guy in this one, unlike the recent farce covering my favorite operating system!
So the question is did he invent it or come up with a concept and the HDD makers come up with the concept on their own. The problem I see with the US patent system is that if someone comes up with an idea that they can never possibly use they can ransom companies to pay for it even though the companies developed it completely independently of the original 'inventor'. If it is such a clever idea that no-one else could come up with then by all means sell your idea to the relevant company. If you don't have the means to make the idea a reality and don't try to provide it to those that can, you should loose your right to it. Otherwise patent trolls will forever prosper at the cost of the consumer and the general economy.
shrapnel_indie
Distinguished
- Jan 21, 2010
- 2,151
- 10
- 20,915
shrapnel_indie
Distinguished
- Jan 21, 2010
- 2,151
- 10
- 20,915
I guess the REAL missing data here is:
1. ARE they actually the same tech?
2. WHO really had the tech first?
3. WERE they completely and independently developed without knowledge of the other? (IF So, I feel no back royalties should be mandated from before the determination is made.)
I'm all for the little guy NOT getting screwed out of his inventions.
I'm NOT for ANYBODY screwing everyone else over because they:
a. Are afraid old-tech/product being released for all to use freely will unravel their new tech secrets. (#1 excuse when it comes to software IP)
b. Are just plain greedy (i.e. SCO and their Linux suit, RIAA, MPAA, BSA)
c. Are control freaks. (i.e. Microsoft, Apple, RIAA, MPAA, BSA)
d. any combination, including all of, the above.
Other than that, the system DOES need an overhaul, even if this guy is in the right.
shrapnel_indie
Distinguished
- Jan 21, 2010
- 2,151
- 10
- 20,915
'97, when the patent was applied for to '10 is 13 years, not 20. This isn't 2017.
The "No Known Prior Art" is not given to us at this time. There may have been, and overlooked by an uneducated approval stamper. Wouldn't be the first time. Then again, He could legitimately be the first. The remaining questions are:
* Are the two techs really the same?
* Were they developed in a vacuum, neither party aware of the other's work, but came to the same answer/design until sometime later? (Time of suit or before?)
* Is there really any prior art, or just an uneducated, overworked, approval stamper?
All questions we don't have the answers to, at least yet.
Scott2010au
Distinguished
- Aug 8, 2010
- 248
- 0
- 18,710
The only thing driving innovation and faster technology that all the above people crave is these patents. They are fools to think otherwise.
pocketdrummer
Distinguished
- Dec 1, 2007
- 1,084
- 30
- 19,310
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
News Firefox user loses 7,470 opened tabs saved over two years after they can’t restore browsing session- Started by Admin
- Replies: 58
-
News Apple debuts M4 processor in new iPad Pros with 38 TOPS on neural engine
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 76
-
Question Samsung SSD showing as a Western Digital with only half of the storage space -- any fixes?
- Started by Frostsent
- Replies: 7
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram