Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Jul 2012 23:08 UTC
Google Apparently, this is a major victory of the patent system. This, this right here, this is what the patent system has come to. This is the destructive effect it's having on this once beautiful industry. Thanks to trolls like Apple and Microsoft, basic, elemental functionality is being removed from devices people already own.
Thread beginning with comment 525358
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: No.
by ricegf on Thu 5th Jul 2012 11:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No."
ricegf
Member since:
2007-04-25

Bush wasn't president in 2009.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No.
by Morgan on Thu 5th Jul 2012 12:11 in reply to "RE[3]: No."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Your bio places you in Texas, so you should already know this by now, but:

Policies set in place by recent past presidents often remain in place under new presidents. This is especially the case with policies that the majority of the public doesn't know or doesn't care about, such as the patent office. If Obama saw an opportunity to gain something by reforming the patent office, he might have done something about it. Given that he seems to be in the pocket of several corporations who stand to gain from an unchanged patent office attitude, I'd say he has zero incentive to make changes.

I would love to see Obama step up and push for patent reform, he could even spin it as a hand up to the small business entrepreneur who wants to move forward with a great idea without the fear of being crushed by a patent suit. But it's an election year, and any policy change right now would be ripped apart by the other side no matter the intention or outcome.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: No.
by ricegf on Thu 5th Jul 2012 12:40 in reply to "RE[4]: No."
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

President Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in the senate and house for 2 years. "But it's an election year" is a remarkably weak excuse for any policies he didn't change when he had the chance.

I'm not a Republican or a fan of Mr. Bush either, by the way. I don't like *either* of the dominant political parties in America, since both seem to believe they can and should run my life for me. I'm debt free, while they've run our country deeply into debt, the idiots - they never met a piece of pork they didn't embrace - and now they claim the right to impose punitive taxes if I don't deal with the corporations that pay for their sponsorship.

Mr. Jefferson's vision of limited government looks better every day.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: No.
by JAlexoid on Fri 6th Jul 2012 09:54 in reply to "RE[3]: No."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Bush wasn't president in 2009.


That is where you are factually wrong.

The inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States took place on Tuesday, January 20, 2009.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: No.
by ricegf on Fri 6th Jul 2012 10:38 in reply to "RE[4]: No."
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

I believe the OP meant patent 5525982, which was granted on Dec 15, 2009.

And while Mr. Bush was technically president for 5.6125941% of 2009 (sorry, just an approximation - I realize that's I'm "factually wrong" again ;-), no historian will credit a decision on that date to Mr. Bush's administration.

I take it you, like so many of his fans, believe Mr. Obama's failings should all be attributed to the dastardly Mr. Bush?

Reply Parent Score: 3