nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 3, 2014 18:09:23 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 2, 2014 18:31:14 GMT
Once again the Federal Circuit (which never saw a patent it didn't like) is being asked by SCOTUS to do things a bit differently. opinion on NAUTILUS, INC. v. BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC.
Basically BIOSIG patented something without actually being adequately specific in what they were patenting. Nautilus did something similar enough to be sued, and the Federal Circuit thought BIOSIG's ambiguity was just fine. Not so fast says the SCOTUS. "a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed" "The definiteness requirement, so understood, mandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable." So far I have always enjoyed reading the following ... "For the reasons stated, we vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. " And you can read Ronald Mann's take on this Opinion analysis: Justices take blue pencil to Federal Circuit opinions on definiteness at Scotusblog
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jun 2, 2014 15:45:06 GMT
Just saw this in Wired ... This Guy Trademarked the Symbol for Pi and Took Away Our Geeky T-Shirts
Reminds me of when Zilog tried to corner the market on everything with a 'Z' in it. Had the people at the patent and trademark office, half a working brain, they would have refused to grant the trademark as it has been in continual prior use well before the *BIRTH* of this 'PI' guy. I realize the symbol the guy is trademarking is the PI symbol followed by a period. (Like that has never occurred before! ) Of course he is upset that all these other things (which use far predates his application) could possibly be confused with his shiny new trademark symbol. And just now whose fault would that be? If this possible confusion really bothers him, then perhaps he should not have chosen a trademark symbol that is so easily confused maybe!?!?!
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on May 19, 2014 21:28:20 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on May 16, 2014 20:13:56 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on May 5, 2014 21:06:34 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on May 5, 2014 13:34:43 GMT
Great.
Now I can detest and loathe both companies. I suppose that is progress of a sort. But it seems that Apples real enemy should then be Samsung and not Android. In any case, we know how flawed the California trial was.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on May 1, 2014 12:56:53 GMT
Amy Howe, A whole new world: Today’s oral arguments in Plain English, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 29, 2014, 5:20 PM), www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/a-whole-new-world-todays-oral-arguments-in-plain-english/" it seemed likely that the Justices are headed for some sort of middle ground: there did not seem to be five votes for either the government’s bright-line rule – that police never need to get a warrant to search a cellphone – or its polar opposite, which would always require a warrant. "
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 29, 2014 20:58:26 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 29, 2014 16:26:43 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 29, 2014 15:53:46 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 29, 2014 12:28:10 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 28, 2014 20:17:19 GMT
VCRs (which were at one time thought to be the doom of broadcast TV) were OK because they were just time-shifting the broadcast, so people could watch at a more convenient time.
Aereo is in effect location shifting. (Also coupled with time-shifting)
Did you actually read any of the documents that anyone filed or is your writing coming from your pre-conceived notions? You are sounding just like the broadcasters.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 25, 2014 22:29:05 GMT
It is not the content that Aereo charges for. It is all those things I mentioned. This is why I think they should prevail.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 25, 2014 14:57:17 GMT
Amy Howe, But what about the “cloud”? The Aereo argument in Plain English, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 24, 2014, 2:59 PM), www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/but-what-about-the-cloud-the-aereo-argument-in-plain-english/This is where with individual antennas, tuners and DVRs Aereo makes available to remote customers content that was freely broadcasted (with commercials) and charges for this service. The broadcasters (rather than providing their own cheaper alternative which they easily could) would rather litigate. Would it be legal for an individual to set up their own tuner, DVR and internet connection to allow themselves to remotely access live or recorded live content from off-air broadcast when they are out of town? And if so, is it still legal if they are renting an apartment, and renting the equipment as well? And if so, what if the 'apartment' is only large enough for the equipment? I am strongly in favor of Aereo. The broadcasters to the extent they do not 'get' new technology are dinosaurs.
|
|