Skip to main content

Home/ Indie Nation/ Group items tagged patent

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
John Lemke

Surprise: Obama's New US Trade Rep Overturns ITC, Stops Ban On Apple Products | Techdirt - 0 views

www.techdirt.com/...stops-ban-apple-products.shtml

2013 trade ban apple products law legal politics government indienationnews

shared by John Lemke on 05 Aug 13 - No Cached
  • John Lemke on 05 Aug 13
     
    "Still, in a somewhat surprising move, Obama's recently appointed US Trade Rep., Michael Froman, has stepped in to directly overturn an ITC injunction issued against Apple products -- including iPhones and iPads, after the ITC sided with Samsung, saying that those devices violated Samsung's patents. The decision by Froman is final -- Samsung can't appeal, and it means that those iPhones and iPads won't get blocked at customs, as would likely have happened otherwise. You can read Froman's letter about this, in which he delves into some detail about the administrations worries about "patent hold up" -- mainly on standards-essential patents (SEPs) that have so-called FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing commitments. As the letter notes:"
John Lemke

Payback time: First patent troll ordered to pay "extraordinary case" fees | Ars Technica - 0 views

arstechnica.com/...s-legal-fees-from-patent-troll

2014 patent fees newmediaorder

shared by John Lemke on 02 Jun 14 - No Cached
  • In the recent Octane Fitness case (PDF), the Supreme Court changed the test for fee-shifting precisely to deter behavior such as Lumen's, Cote found. Lumen didn't do "any reasonable pre-suit investigation," and filed a number of near-identical "boilerplate" complaints in a short time frame. That all suggests "Lumen’s instigation of baseless litigation is not isolated to this instance, but is instead part of a predatory strategy aimed at reaping financial advantage from the inability or unwillingness of defendants to engage in litigation against even frivolous patent lawsuits."
John Lemke

Western Union Gets A Patent On An Exchange For 'Alternative Currencies' | Techdirt - 0 views

www.techdirt.com/...e-alternative-currencies.shtml

patent currencies alternative western union 2014 indienationnews

shared by John Lemke on 08 May 14 - No Cached
  • nearly a year after the original Bitcoin paper -- it was before people were really talking about Bitcoin. So the filing doesn't mention Bitcoin, but does mention many of the more popular digital currencies that came before it
  • exchanging currencies is not a particularly new idea
John Lemke

Revisiting The Purpose Of The Copyright Monopoly: Science And The Useful Arts | Torrent... - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/nce-and-the-useful-arts-121202

2012 indienationnews legal law government politics IN TNN intelectualProperty IP copyright constitution USA

shared by John Lemke on 04 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • If there’s one thing that needs constant reminding, it’s the explicit purpose of the copyright monopoly. Its purpose is to promote the progress of human knowledge. Nothing less. Nothing more.
  • [Congress has the power] to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
  • has the power, and not the obligation
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • two kinds of monopolies: copyright monopolies and patent monopolies, respectively. Science and the useful arts. The “science” part refers to the copyright monopoly, and the “useful arts” has nothing to do with creative works – it is “arts” in the same sense as “artisan”, that is, craftsmanship.
  • the purpose of the copyright monopoly isn’t to enable somebody to make money, and never was. Its sole purpose was and is to advance humanity as a whole. The monopoly begins and ends with the public interest; it does not exist for the benefit of the author and inventor.
  • The second thing we note is the “science” part. The US Constitution only gives Congress the right to protect works of knowledge – educational works, if you like – with a copyright monopoly. “Creative works” such as movies and music are nowhere to be found whatsoever in this empowerment of Congress to create temporary government-sanctioned monopolies.
  • Which brings us to the third notable item: “the exclusive right”. This is what we would refer to colloquially as a “monopoly”. The copyright industry has been tenacious in trying to portray the copyright monopoly as “property”, when in reality, the exclusive rights created are limitations of property rights (it prohibits me from storing the bitpatterns of my choosing on my own hardware). Further, it should be noted that this monopoly is not a guarantee to make money. It is a legal right to prevent others from attempting to do so. There’s a world of difference. You can have all the monopolies you like and still not make a cent.
  • The fourth notable item is the “for limited times”. This can be twisted and turned in many ways, obviously; it has been argued that “forever less a day” is still “limited” in the technical sense. But from my personal perspective – and I’ll have to argue, from the perspective of everybody reading this text – anything that extends past our time of death is not limited in time.
John Lemke

September 11, 2012: Opus audio codec is now RFC6716, Opus 1.0.1 reference source released - 0 views

www.xiph.org/rfc-6716

2012 audio rfc codec technology codecs slashdot news standard INN

shared by John Lemke on 12 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Free and Open Another reason there are so many audio codecs: silly licensing restrictions. Would you base a business on technology a competitor controls? That's why the Opus specification and complete source are Free, Open, and available for any use whatsoever without IP restrictions, explicit licensing or royalties. Opus was developed and tested in a public, fully transparent process within the IETF, proof that open collaboration can produce a better audio codec than proprietary, secretive, patent-encumbered systems. Open standards benefit-- and benefit from-- open source organizations and traditional commercial software companies alike. Opus itself is the result of a collaboration including Broadcom, Google, the IETF, Microsoft (through Skype), Mozilla, Octasic and Xiph.Org.
1 - 5 of 5
Showing 20▼ items per page