Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Tue 6th Oct 2009 21:43 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
The patent wars rage on. Eolas, a company that before won US$585 million from Microsoft in 2003 in a suit that challenged the use of ActiveX and AJAX, is now after twenty-three separate companies allegedly because their precious patent was spoiled by all of them.
Thread beginning with comment 388131
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
The problem is that even if they decided to be ethical/moral (per your question), patent law ties their hands - if they want to keep the patent then they have to fight to get everyone to license it from them; if they knew of someone infringing and did nothing about it, then they lose the ability to further enforce the patent.
Incorrect. You are thinking about Trademarks. Patents do not have to be enforced to remain enforceable. That's where the term "submarine patent" comes from - someone patents something, then waits and does nothing while companies implement products using the patented idea. When it becomes big enough, THEN they surface and sue everybody.
Some companies have even gone so far as to pretend that it's okay to use their patents, then turn around and sue over them once they become popular.
Member since:2007-08-22
"The problem is that even if they decided to be ethical/moral (per your question), patent law ties their hands - if they want to keep the patent then they have to fight to get everyone to license it from them; if they knew of someone infringing and did nothing about it, then they lose the ability to further enforce the patent.
Incorrect. You are thinking about Trademarks. Patents do not have to be enforced to remain enforceable. That's where the term "submarine patent" comes from - someone patents something, then waits and does nothing while companies implement products using the patented idea. When it becomes big enough, THEN they surface and sue everybody.
Some companies have even gone so far as to pretend that it's okay to use their patents, then turn around and sue over them once they become popular. "
Incorrect on your part. There is a time limit for how long someone with a patent can wait before enforcing it. This is where the submarine patents come in - the patent holder waits until nearly the last minute then provides notice of court filings.
You are correct that Trademarks hold the same; as do copyrights. Though the terms vary for each.
In all cases the clock starts at the time the 'owner' becomes aware of the infringement (copyright/patent) or unapproved use (Trademark).
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-08-22
<blockquote>Mike McKool, one of Eolas' lawyers, said that "what distinguishes this case from most patent suits is that so many established companies named as defendants are infringing a patent that has been ruled valid by the Patent Office on three occasions." The company chairman, Michael Doyle, added, "We just want what's fair." My addition? "You just want what's greenish and has 'FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE' imprinted on it." Then again, if I invented a technology and knew I could get money out of slapping others for using it, it'd be sorely tempting to do so. Still, does the fact that a person (or group of persons) can do something mean that they should?</blockquote>
The problem is that even if they decided to be ethical/moral (per your question), patent law ties their hands - if they want to keep the patent then they have to fight to get everyone to license it from them; if they knew of someone infringing and did nothing about it, then they lose the ability to further enforce the patent.