Jump to content



Photo

Oracle Forced to Throw Out 98% of Patent Infringement Claims


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 +techbeck

techbeck

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,240 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05

Posted 06 May 2011 - 23:55

Google’s lawyers just got a hell of a break up against Oracle’s. The Honorable Judge William Alsup has determined that Oracle just has too many damned patent infringement claims in this case and has ordered them to cut back. How much fat did they burn? Out of an initial 132 claims, the judge has informed them that only three would be tried. The rest are to be tucked away in Oracle’s filing cabinets never to be heard from or seen again.

It’s a big blow to Oracle in their attempts to get Google to pay up for “stealing” bits of code that they have obtained (through acquisition) from Sun Microsystems. Everyone has long said that patent reform is long overdue and this Judge’s actions shows he believes just as much. At least for software, something needs to be done about companies suing each other because they weren’t the first to innovate with what they’ve claimed is theirs.

While this doesn’t mean Google will have an easy time fighting off Oracle, it does mean Android isn’t in as much trouble as was once believed. And did you think Google would let the hottest thing in mobile die because one company – who had nothing to do with Java’s inception – had a few folders saying they owned the rights to this and that? It’s no surprise that the main folks behind Java’s existence left the company shortly after the acquisition was approved.

Sun had every chance to sue Google while they were still their own entity, but they didn’t. We don’t know why they didn’t, but a piece of us likes to think that Sun recognized the value in open source software and were actually quite pleased with what Google had done with Android. Oracle’s trying to pick a fight with the biggest kid in the lunch room and we all know how that tends to turn out. I have a feeling this case won’t go on for much longer – Oracle’s morale has to be quite low following these events.


http://phandroid.com...against-google/


#2 wahoospa

wahoospa

    Neowinian

  • 822 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07
  • Location: South Carolina

Posted 07 May 2011 - 00:09

Whew!

#3 ahhell

ahhell

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,896 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 03
  • Location: Winnipeg - coldest place on Earth - yeah

Posted 07 May 2011 - 00:16

Good...hate Oracle with a passion.

#4 ViperAFK

ViperAFK

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,837 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 06
  • Location: Vermont

Posted 07 May 2011 - 00:32

Owned.

I really wish we would just abolish software patents completely though. They are a totally flawed concept that stifles innovation and just promotes patent trolling for money.

#5 vetJames7

James7

    Fixed tentatively

  • 7,383 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 04
  • OS: Xubuntu 14.04 & Mavericks
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S3

Posted 07 May 2011 - 00:45

I really wish we would just abolish software patents completely though. They are a totally flawed concept that stifles innovation and just promotes patent trolling for money.


Absolutely agree. (Y)

#6 +Xinok

Xinok

    Resident Reresident

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: 28-May 04
  • Location: Shikaka
  • OS: Windows 7 x64
  • Phone: Galaxy S3 (Wicked)

Posted 07 May 2011 - 00:48

Owned.

I really wish we would just abolish software patents completely though. They are a totally flawed concept that stifles innovation and just promotes patent trolling for money.

Eliminating software patents altogether would just bring a new set of problems. What we need is patent reform, redefining what is patentable in the first place, whether a person or company is worthy of a patent or not, and passing laws which will prevent patent hoarding.

Personally, I think patents should be "use it or lose it". If you patent something and have no intention to do anything with it other than sue others, then you should lose the rights to that patent or be forced to sell it.

#7 trieste

trieste

    Neowinian

  • 220 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 08
  • Location: Singapore

Posted 07 May 2011 - 01:33

Personally, I think patents should be "use it or lose it". If you patent something and have no intention to do anything with it other than sue others, then you should lose the rights to that patent or be forced to sell it.

:yes:

#8 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 07 May 2011 - 01:38

Whew!

I hear ya. I also here the folks at Google saying the same thing.

#9 Jebadiah

Jebadiah

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,209 posts
  • Joined: 08-February 04

Posted 07 May 2011 - 04:56

Personally, I think patents should be "use it or lose it". If you patent something and have no intention to do anything with it other than sue others, then you should lose the rights to that patent or be forced to sell it.

That is the whole point of the patent expiration date.

#10 etempest

etempest

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,801 posts
  • Joined: 06-June 03
  • Location: United States

Posted 07 May 2011 - 05:01

I knew a teacher that actually has a patent, and had good insight on the system.
The original system was designed for mechanical inventions, at the time computer / concepts were not around and that's why it's trickery / situation where in.

#11 Jebadiah

Jebadiah

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,209 posts
  • Joined: 08-February 04

Posted 07 May 2011 - 05:05

I knew a teacher that actually has a patent, and had good insight on the system.
The original system was designed for mechanical inventions, at the time computer / concepts were not around and that's why it's trickery / situation where in.

Software patents are different from Design patents.

#12 +Xinok

Xinok

    Resident Reresident

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: 28-May 04
  • Location: Shikaka
  • OS: Windows 7 x64
  • Phone: Galaxy S3 (Wicked)

Posted 07 May 2011 - 05:06

That is the whole point of the patent expiration date.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States

There's nothing in there stating that you lose the patent if you don't use it. As long as you pay the maintenance fees, you can sit on a patent for up to 20 years, do nothing with it, and wait until you can sue somebody with it.

#13 JoeyF

JoeyF

    Neowinian

  • 571 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 08
  • Location: Earth

Posted 07 May 2011 - 05:06

Personally, I think patents should be "use it or lose it". If you patent something and have no intention to do anything with it other than sue others, then you should lose the rights to that patent or be forced to sell it.


In addition, I believe that patents should be non transferable. The entire idea of patents is to protect one's innovation. If person A invents something and files a patent, person B shouldn't be able to come along and buy the patent - they didn't innovate, they just wrote a check - the patent is no longer 'intellectual property' at that point, it's just 'property', as the intellectual component is no longer affiliated with the patent once it's sold.

That is the whole point of the patent expiration date.


The expiration dates are way too generous. I don't know the exact number, but it's somewhere around 15-20 years. Think about what we were using twenty years ago - AT keyboards, DB-9 mice, ISA slots, dial up networking, etc. The problem is that, in technology, whatever is covered in the patent is completely irrelevant long the patent expires.

#14 Jebadiah

Jebadiah

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,209 posts
  • Joined: 08-February 04

Posted 07 May 2011 - 05:12

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States

There's nothing in there stating that you lose the patent if you don't use it. As long as you pay the maintenance fees, you can sit on a patent for up to 20 years, do nothing with it, and wait until you can sue somebody with it.

The 17-20 year period is what I was referring you to and that is how inventors make money. Would you not want credit for your ideas?

The expiration dates are way too generous. I don't know the exact number, but it's somewhere around 15-20 years. Think about what we were using twenty years ago - AT keyboards, DB-9 mice, ISA slots, dial up networking, etc. The problem is that, in technology, whatever is covered in the patent is completely irrelevant long the patent expires.

I agree the period should be revised because we are not able to put *certain* ideas to use much more faster. However, if you think of an idea that cannot be implemented successfully by anybody within say 5 or 10 years, the 17-20 year rule makes perfect sense.

I would be more ****ed if a company in the Oil industry held a Battery patent just to favor their business.

I would love for patents to be free and if humans were to be doing everything they do for the good of mankind, but that is not being realistic. LOL

#15 +Xinok

Xinok

    Resident Reresident

  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: 28-May 04
  • Location: Shikaka
  • OS: Windows 7 x64
  • Phone: Galaxy S3 (Wicked)

Posted 07 May 2011 - 05:30

The 17-20 year period is what I was referring you to and that is how inventors make money. Would you not want credit for your ideas?

Here's how patents should work: "I have an idea. I'm going to patent it so nobody else can steal my idea. I'm going to look for investors to invest in my idea. I'll use that money to do research and build a prototype."

Here's how patent trolls work: "I have an idea. I'm going to patent it but keep it a secret and tell nobody else about it. I'm going to wait for somebody else to come up with the same idea and actually do something with it. Then I'm going to sue them because I came up with the idea first."

Ideas are useless if you do nothing with them.