| [News] Genesi adds four new patents to its intellectual property portfolio | Link |
| Posted on 30-Oct-2003 13:26 GMT by Joël EHRET | 69 comments (36k)
View flat (1, 2)
View list
Add comment | | On MorphOS-news.de, Genesi announced today that four patents owned by Raquel Velasco will be included in Genesi intellectual property portfolio.
Read more there.
|
|
Genesi adds four new patents to its intellectual property portfolio : Comment 4 of 69 | Posted by Ben Yoris (217.128.130.19) on 30-Oct-2003 15:30:40 | As a former lawyer (yes Sir !) I can modestly tell that the notion of patent is radically different whether it's appreciated from an european or an americain point of view.
To sum up, in Europe patents must have a technical condition, must be a real invention, something about technics. In the USA, this condition is less important if I remember my curses correctly. The danger is that patent regulation musn't protect (ie. forbid) general ideas, and sometimes when reading some US patents it looks as if it's the case.
A very long matter to discuss...
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
Genesi adds four new patents to its intellectual property portfolio : Comment 19 of 69 | Posted by 3seas (209.86.130.102) on 30-Oct-2003 23:51:22 | In Reply to Comment 10 (bbrv):
hehehe, Bill, rather than read the abstracts.... is what I ment. I was asking for a simple summary of what some of the possibilities are. I figured such an answer could do no harm at worse, you already have the patents, at best such a simple summary might attract more interest. Besides given the brief single line descriptions I couldn't think of anything I'd be interested in related to interactive TV, as TV is something I generally do in teh background or as an excape from doing something else, or in other words procastinating. I don't need interactivity in doing that, as it would contridict the excape.
of course the above is based on single line descriptions vs. reading four abstracts and relying on my own imagination to see what I thing is there or not.
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
Genesi adds four new patents to its intellectual property portfolio : Comment 23 of 69 | Posted by bbrv (Registered user) on 31-Oct-2003 00:38:38 | In Reply to Comment 22 (Joel):
Actually Joel these kind of patents HELP us go against big companies! We are a small one, remember?! :-) In Europe, with the involvement of the National Governments in many of the biggest companies competition for small companies is actually harder. Microsoft grew to where it is today without direct government assistance, in fact they have had to combat it. Whatever you want to say about Microsoft they did it without government help. For instance, we are not sure you could say the same thing about Sagem (directly) or the BBC (sort of). We hope you can see the point.
R&B
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
Genesi adds four new patents to its intellectual property portfolio : Comment 25 of 69 | Posted by Joel (217.77.153.158) on 31-Oct-2003 00:48:23 | In Reply to Comment 23 (bbrv):
@BBRV
IIRC you made it for defense purpose, right? But you can use it for offense. I'm really curious when and how will you use these rights?
"Whatever you want to say about Microsoft they did it without government help."
I cannot aggree with this. Just think about, registering a common name 'windows'. Think about the lost case against Apple and the result were, paying few bugs and life goes on. And think about that, before the WTC attack Microsoft's monopoly case were in bad shape. After the WTC event it has disappeared... And so on... Yeah, and do you know why debian linux US version doesn't include font antialiasing? You can guess once!
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
Genesi adds four new patents to its intellectual property portfolio : Comment 29 of 69 | Posted by greenboy (Registered user) on 31-Oct-2003 01:48:45 | In Reply to Comment 27 (Joel):
> Joel :
>We are living in a complicate world. :)
Which is why oversimplifying one's stance about hot-button issues is often a big mistake, whether examining the use of patents and patent law, or the timeline of Microsoft's climb to desktop supremacy. For instance, by the time the US government thought it might have much to say about Microsoft (in fact the first time the Justice dept looked into MS it quickly scurried away rather than following through), Microsoft had already sprawled into its position of monsterism.
And with patents, it is often the case that those who have them are happy to, while those who don't have any sure would like to gain at the expense of someone else's R&D and marketing. That, too is a polarized view, so it pays to take it on a case by case basis, and realize that the reasons patents exist have always been valid, it's just the implementation of patent law that most people find cause for honest protest about.
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
Genesi adds four new patents to its intellectual property portfolio : Comment 38 of 69 | Posted by Anonymous (4.33.151.136) on 31-Oct-2003 06:42:29 | In Reply to Comment 33 (greenboy):
My, it's fun splitting hairs, isn't it? PATENTS are wrong, software patents are *really* wrong because it's much easier for the little guy to make something significant with software. Still, I don't see you refuting my main argument. Say that I build something in my garage, using PCBs, chips, etc. That's hardware. Your lawyers can still bankrupt me if they decide I'm stepping on your toes.
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
Genesi adds four new patents to its intellectual property portfolio : Comment 40 of 69 | Posted by Amon_Re (Registered user) on 31-Oct-2003 07:00:11 | In Reply to Comment 38 (Anonymous):
Patents aren't bad, in theory, the problem is that some patents aren't specific enough, or patent things one shouldn't be able to patent (double click eg)
If i were to own a patent for "hardware or aperatus for displaying data" i would be able to sue just about any company eg, that's why patents should be *extremely* precise.
Software patents are, due to the very nature of the industry, a nightmare waiting to happen, because lets face it, most patents are way to generalised.
Cheers
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
Genesi adds four new patents to its intellectual property portfolio : Comment 41 of 69 | Posted by Kronos (217.0.51.55) on 31-Oct-2003 07:15:37 | Somehow I think these nameless cowards wouldn't be complaining it were the
"right-click-select-multiple-menus"-patent(expired) we would be talking about.
Trivial patents are evil,and the world would be better without them,problem is
you can't fight/survive against big $$ useing patents without having some of
your own. Just like everybody sane would agree,that "the world" doesn't need
weapons/armies,but as long as the bad guys have them .....
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
Genesi adds four new patents to its intellectual property portfolio : Comment 42 of 69 | Posted by Anonymous (4.33.151.136) on 31-Oct-2003 07:42:34 | In Reply to Comment 41 (Kronos):
Hi, Nameless Coward here. Would you feel better if I got myself some random nick like NotANamelessCoward? at least this way I'm being honest...
Anyway, I agree with you, patents per se are not the problem. The problem is Hardball Business (aka Ethics Be Damned Business), which seems to be becoming pretty prevalent these days. Sure, bbrv wants patents to defend himself, but I have no doubts in my mind that he would use them to squash anyone moving in on his territory. I'm not picking on him specifically, as I said everyone's doing it, but he has shown time and again that he's not too squeamish to play hardball like the big boys do. Therefore any claim that the patents are "for defense only" should be treated the same as any claims by GM, Pepsi or any big company that they're doing similar things "for defense only". If I had a "one man band" type of company, there would be little difference between me going up against Genesi or Microsoft in court, I'd be just as screwed. Who's "the little guy" the patents are supposed to defend in this case?
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
Genesi adds four new patents to its intellectual property portfolio : Comment 44 of 69 | Posted by Bill Hoggett (80.46.142.64) on 31-Oct-2003 09:44:40 | In Reply to Comment 42 (Anonymous):
I disagree. Patents per se _are_ bad, because they are used to enforce ownership of ideas, as if no one else could possibly come up with the same or similar idea totally independent of the original.
Patents should be the equivalent of copyright for things that cannot be copyrighted. They should therefore be very specific and limited to the one product for which they were obtained.
One measure which may help reduce the current abuse of both patens and copyright laws would be to make both non-transferrable.
Not that it will ever happen, since the lawmakers are always too corrupt to upset the corporations who get the most benefit from the abuse of these lax laws.
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
Genesi adds four new patents to its intellectual property portfolio : Comment 45 of 69 | Posted by minator (62.23.241.66) on 31-Oct-2003 10:21:07 | In Reply to Comment 38 (Anonymous):
>My, it's fun splitting hairs, isn't it? PATENTS are wrong, software patents
>are *really* wrong because it's much easier for the little guy to make something
>significant with software.
Patents were originally thought up to protect the inventor by giving them a short term (20 years) monopoly on that idea. There is nothing wrong with this, I seriously doubt we'd have the advanced technology we have today if it wasn't for patents.
The problem is as Greenboy says one of implementation. The rules say patents must be very specific, not obvious and not invented before.
Unfortunately patent offices are not always well funded and as a result (especially in the US) getting patents on things that break the rules is all too easy. An issue they are thankfully finally beginning to take notice of.
>Still, I don't see you refuting my main argument. Say that I build something in my garage,
>using PCBs, chips, etc. That's hardware. Your lawyers can still bankrupt me if they decide
>I'm stepping on your toes.
Only if it makes sense to bring a case, and in any case the normal outcome is to pay a (small) license fee.
Patents don't fit well to software due to it's very nature and 20 years is a very long time in the software industry. If the time limit was reduced to say 3 years and the rules enforced properly there wouldn't be an issue.
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
Genesi adds four new patents to its intellectual property portfolio : Comment 46 of 69 | Posted by koan (193.133.140.104) on 31-Oct-2003 13:01:31 | In Reply to Comment 44 (Bill Hoggett):
> I disagree. Patents per se _are_ bad, because they are used to enforce
> ownership of ideas,
I disagree.
Patents also enforce that knowledge is disseminated, rather than be kept
secret. A patent must describe how the invention works in sufficient
detail that it could be reproduced. That is published for everyone to read.
Patents give you a short term monopoly but in the long term
everyone benefits.
> Not that it will ever happen, since the lawmakers are always too corrupt to
> upset the corporations who get the most benefit from the abuse of these lax
> laws.
Any individual can get a patent, it doesn't cost that much. Now defending it,
that is a different prospect. Only the lawyers benefit and that's why you have
to be a big corporation.
I haven't read these patents registered by Genesi but would be surprised if they intend to make a product or sell licences. I'd guess it's purely to increase their stature and attract investors.
koan
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
Genesi adds four new patents to its intellectual property portfolio : Comment 49 of 69 | Posted by bbrv (Registered user) on 31-Oct-2003 15:51:19 | In Reply to Comment 48 (koan):
OK, trying again...:-)
As we have said on other forums:
1) The patents give us some leverage against much bigger companies who have infringed on them (again, these are HARDWARE patents). We may be able to force the payment of license fees where infringement can be shown and we may enter an agreement with a law firm specialized to do that sort of thing in the weeks ahead.
2) They could also give us leverage in a cross-licensing situation, and in this case what we are getting might have nothing to do with a STB.
3) They can protect us from bigger companies that might want to slow/stop us.
4) Finally they can give us credibility with institutions and/or investors (particularly as we prepare to go "public").
Roger Remillard was the designer of the ED (Electronic Device) for which the patents were developed. Roger and his patents became part of VisCorp in 1993. We built VisCorp around this device. The ED was a STB that was designed ultimately to run on the AmigaOS. Escom was to be the distributor of the ED in Europe and VisCorp paid a license fee to Escom after Escom acquired Amiga from the CBM bankruptcy. A year later Escom was bankrupt (after nearly $2 billion in revenue in 1995). Then VisCorp tried to buy Amiga from the Escom bankruptcy (we had little choice as we needed the AmigaOS to exist as planned), but without ultimate success (Gateway bought Amiga). When VisCorp abandoned the Amiga acquisition they also abandoned the ED. The Board of Directors felt that without a major distributor the ED was dead. We disagreed with the Board and resigned from VisCorp. They partnered with Iridium. We bought the patents. We know what happened to them. We are still trying...;-) Raquel has been the "Assignee" or owner since 1998.
The patents can be seen here where they are further linked to the USP&TO.
http://www.genesi.lu/press_20031030.php
R&B
Reply to this comment | Top |
|
[Top] [Next 50] Add comments | - Links
- Support ANN
- ANN is hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link and I will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
|
