Quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
When did Acacia ever contribute anything or help create anything?
|
I understand your points.. but the way that Patent Law works now, is that you don't have to create anything... you can get patents on ideas that have never been created.
You can get process patents that can be as silly as making peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
You can get business method patents like how to sell peanut butter sandwiches from a stand on the side of the road.
You can sit on your patent for a long time as Unisys did with the GIF patent....
Lemelson is a whole subject matter on its own.. but may provide future precedent (good or bad) for patents with all the various patents his foundation is licensing.
Alot of people have been saying that Acacia didn't even invent the patent, or that the patent doesn't have any software or hardware.. while i agree with those setentiments, they are not relevant to this patent abuse case.
What is relevant is Acacia's interpretation of their patent to be broader than what the patent states, and to interpret wildly in its applications to internet-based audio/video.
The defendants recent court docs focus on the language of the patents and try to show the judge how the claims made today are not relevant to the defendants.
All the while, the clock ticks on the attorney bills... further evidence of how much money companies lose (and attorneys gain) every year for frivilous lawsuits.
Hopefully the new Director for USPTO (young guy) will make some changes.
Fight the Long Posts!