Re: [News] Shuttleworth Concerned About Patent Trolls (USPTO Loopholes), Not Microsoft - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: [News] Shuttleworth Concerned About Patent Trolls (USPTO Loopholes), Not Microsoft - Linux ; In article , Roy Schestowitz wrote: > Who is the world's biggest patent troll? > > ,----[ Quote ] > | In two consecutive days, The Wall Street Journal presented two different > | answers. The first is not surprising: ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: [News] Shuttleworth Concerned About Patent Trolls (USPTO Loopholes), Not Microsoft

  1. Re: [News] Shuttleworth Concerned About Patent Trolls (USPTO Loopholes), Not Microsoft

    In article <2530676.7pv5jFsorT@schestowitz.com>,
    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > Who is the world's biggest patent troll?
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | In two consecutive days, The Wall Street Journal presented two different
    > | answers. The first is not surprising: Intellectual Ventures, the brainchild
    > | of ex-Microsoft executive Nathan Myhrvold. It's now out "to raise as much
    > | as
    > | $1 billion to help develop and patent inventions, many of them from
    > | universities in Asia."
    > `----
    >
    > http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9...=news&tag=2547
    > -1_3-0-20


    Why did you cite an article that you *know* is full of errors? You are
    a regular reader of http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/. You can't
    pretend that you don't know what a patent troll is. Both of the
    entities he cites (the one you list, and the one you don't bother to
    list because you can't find any remote Microsoft connection) are
    entities that develop and commercialize the things they patent, which
    *by* *definition* makes them not patent trolls.

    Oh, but that's right. Being accurate would have gotten in they way of
    your agenda, wouldn't it have?


    --
    --Tim Smith

  2. Re: [News] Shuttleworth Concerned About Patent Trolls (USPTO Loopholes),Not Microsoft

    on 22/02/08 09:59 Tim 'Linux Advocate' Smith wrote:

    > Why did you cite an article that you *know* is full of errors?


    What error would they be?

    > Both of the entities he cites (the one you list, and the one you don't bother to list because you can't find any remote Microsoft connection) are entities that develop and commercialize the things they patent


    Why isn't 'Intellectual Vultures' sorry I mean Ventures a patent troll?

    What commercial products specifically do Intellectual Ventures or
    University of California make?

    What developement facilities do either own?

    How many employees of either are engaged in commercial development?

    What's your opinion on the 'eBay Inc v. MercExchange ruling, where eBay
    is being sued for selling things over the Internet. Curiously enough
    Intellectual Ventures filed an amicus brief in favor of MercExchange.
    -------

    "On behalf of many of the most important American inventors of our time,
    Susman Godfrey has filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme
    Court in the eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange L.L.C. case set for oral
    argument this term"

    "Brief Amici Curiae of Martin Cooper, Raymond Damadian, Leroy Hood,
    Nathan Myhrvold, Robert Rines, Burt Rutan, James West, 14 other
    inventors .."

    http://www.susmangodfrey.com/newsfla...ArticleID=1639
    --

    Smith: click on the URL to read the full text ..

+ Reply to Thread