Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago
    The problem that I have with these articles that you post is that they couch the story in inflammatory language and present little in the way of actual factual information on how AC is violating the patent. The way I see this issue, it seems like JL is trying to sue Michael Jordan for making money by wearing Nike sneakers. How does the fact that a capability exists that one procured from a separate source, permit the originator of the capability to be entitled to a cut of the proceeds? If anything, it would seem that JL might have an action against whomever provided the podcasting software/system, but not AC.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by khalling 10 years ago
      AC hired developers to provide his company with technology that was stolen. Think about how theft works...if I buy stolen goods from a fence, who has to make restitution on the stolen goods? I do. regardless, if I hire independent contractors to my company is still responsible for how my company is using anything designed in my company's name. The article is extremely clear that all the violations had easy work arounds. AC's company neglected to do due diligence on IP. It's possible they knew full well they should be licensing the tech. I gave you the patents, this article tells you which exact claims were violated. The inflammatory language begins and ends with Logan labeled a "troll." Trust me, if Kohls sells knock off NIKEs as NIKES-NIKE goes after Kohls
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago
        None of the articles that you've linked to have presented that info. If that's the case, then demonstrate the theft and go after the thieves. If someone steals a shovel and I purchase it, then use it to build a house (even if I was the employer of those that committed the theft) does the original owner of the shovel have a claim on part of the house? One must prove damages.

        Please understand, I'm not anti-IP and believe that all inventors should be justly compensated for their inventions.

        As for this article, I got tired of the inflammatory rhetoric that added little to understanding the issues. I went back to the other thread and looked up the patent citations you provided. I don't see it, and none of the '96 references seemed to pertain to a podcast - musical retrieval, yes, so I understand the Apple suit and iTunes, just not podcasting.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by dbhalling 10 years ago
          Of course Robbie. Prove that you could have invent podcasting today if I took the technology back to 1996. And the patent is not to just podcasting. According to you Edison and the Wright brothers didn't invent anything. There were electric lights before Edison's and heavier than air flying machines before the Wright brothers. Inventions require more study than the cursory look you gave the patent. You are not competent to read the claims, which are what define the invention. This is not because lawyers use obscure language, its because it is inherently a complex area, just like ElectroMagnetics and EMP pulses.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago
            Just seems like he's going after the wrong entity. I don't have the inclination nor desire to sift through the details of the patent. As I said, I spent more time in the past few hours than I ever desired to, looking at these patents. I didn't see anything that would point me to podcasting. As you certainly know, patents are specific and precise. I saw music distribution, and "sound" distribution (which is overly vague - and I'm surprised would ever be granted).

            As I said somewhere earlier - not sure if you read it or not - serialized information has been around for close to a hundred years if not more. If there is a specific embodiment of technology that was utilized to embody this, then I'll grant the patent violation, but neither of the articles (at least as far as I read them - the both seemed merely to be ad hominem attacks against AC) pointed out the specific claim that was violated.

            I wish you would pick one of the myriad of true instances of IP theft. There are innumerable stories of an inventor who goes in to a company to sell his invention, even under non-disclosure agreements - and they steal the idea and use it. The small time inventor cannot afford to take on corporate legal, and the ambulance chasers aren't interested as the ability to challenge and win takes a lot of work, is very uncertain, and damages are often nothing close to "pain and suffering" that you can get from a medical claim.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 10 years ago
              This patent was already challenged by Apple in court, on the podcasting aspect and found valid and found Apple was infringing. But you are sure you know better. This is real inventor theft.
              '
              You do not seem to understand that every invention is a combination of known things (elements) - it is called conservation of matter and energy. Saying one part is known (sequencing) in meaningless. It is like saying the LASER was not an invention because ruby rods were known, flash lamps were known and so were Fabry–Pérot interferometers. Or like saying the microcontroller is just a bunch of transistors, capacitors, resistors, and diodes. This line of thinking requires an inventor to violate the laws of physics to have invented anything, which would mean you could only get a patent for black magic.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo