| > How is asserting these patents in court, or using them to get an import ban via the ITC, an example of how the patent system is supposed to work I thought I did so in point 3. (Edit: removed bit about copyright because it could quickly derail this thread into a copyright/piracy thread.) >... (B&N actually argued that they weren't invented at all, at least not by Microsoft) that should have never had a patent issued for them in the first place,... > Here's a good starting place: Barnes and Noble's response to Microsoft's ITC complaint: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/MSvB&Nanswer.pdf > Yes, the patents really are terrible. Really? You're going to take the defendant's word to show that the "patents really are terrible"? I'd like you to find a single defendant in a patent lawsuit who didn't think the asserted patents were terrible. > ... you argue that once they do agree to a patent license they are getting to license totally awesome things? No, they'll just get a license to do things covered by the patents that they were allegedly doing anyway. Said things may or may not be totally awesome. And if they're not very useful, why do them in the first place? >In any case, you sound reticent to start reading the patents. No, I actually did go and read the pertinent parts of the patents linked above. They're actually better than the really terrible ones I've seen from that era. But I cannot make an off-hand judgement on their overall quality because that would require reading the patents, and the file-wrapper, and the prior art, and... But, wait. Did you read the patents? And the file-wrapper? And the prior art? Or are you just accepting an opinion given by hilariously biased sources? |