Comments on: Small company makes big claims on XML patents

Scientigo is close to signing a deal with an IP-licensing firm to try to "monetize" patents it says are infringed by XML.

[Lolo Gecko]

markup tags: Goldfarb '74 , duh :)

:)

[Lolo Gecko]

markup tags: Goldfarb '74 , duh :)

:)

Interesting

It is interesting that they have done this now. Now that it is the hotest thing out there.

Interesting

It is interesting that they have done this now. Now that it is the hotest thing out there.

[My-Self]

I want a patent on abusing the patent system ...

I want a patent on abusing the patent system, but I probably won't be able to get it : Too much prior art !

[OneHop]

Sorry.

I'm sorry, but I already have a patent on a person wanting to patent abusing the patent system. There fore, you owe me money. I'll take it in all 100's and 50's. I also filed for a patent on how to file patents as well as the idea of suing over patent infrengment. :) I've seen stupider patents out there.

[My-Self]

I want a patent on abusing the patent system ...

I want a patent on abusing the patent system, but I probably won't be able to get it : Too much prior art !

[OneHop]

Sorry.

I'm sorry, but I already have a patent on a person wanting to patent abusing the patent system. There fore, you owe me money. I'll take it in all 100's and 50's. I also filed for a patent on how to file patents as well as the idea of suing over patent infrengment. :) I've seen stupider patents out there.

1. It's like entrapement, and 2. it's hardly novel

If someone holds a patent and then sits idly by while knowingly allowing others to use it, it shows an acceptance of the free use of their idea. To me it's a precedent saying that they tacitly agree to the free use of their idea. To change their minds later without having forewarned the infringers that they would expect royalities and would persue it is like entrapment, and to me that is the abuse that is occuring in the patent system. If they set the precedent by allowing the free use of their idea, then in my mind they have given up their rights, and should not be allowed to persue it.

Also, I hope some people are saying that the patent office is overreaching in it's grants, instead of saying that software patents in general are a bad idea. Certainly if someone could come up with an idea that is very novel and is a large leap and implement it too, for example an operating system based on biological tissue instead of hardware, then it should be patentable. But if someone tries to patent a neutral representation of data, it seems too vauge, and hardly novel. In my opinion the problem was that they should not have been able to patent that in the first place.

[Captain_Spock]

"they should....

... they should not have been able to patent that in the first place" (XML it is assumed). I am in total agreement with your point of view. Let's see what are the outcome of the litigation processes if and when they do emerge.

[Ringthane]

Ken, You have a VERY valid point.

This company Scientigo is nothing more than a bunch of greedy, leeching, capitalistic, corporate types. Well, welcome to America. I love my country, but there are those who, in my humble opinon, shame our great nation by behaving like vultures and leeches. May they get what they deserve. The whole patent process needs to be revamped. And fair consideration given to TIMELY litigation. Bottom line: If your going to wait 3 years before you inforce your patent rights, your SOL. PERIOD.

1. It's like entrapement, and 2. it's hardly novel

If someone holds a patent and then sits idly by while knowingly allowing others to use it, it shows an acceptance of the free use of their idea. To me it's a precedent saying that they tacitly agree to the free use of their idea. To change their minds later without having forewarned the infringers that they would expect royalities and would persue it is like entrapment, and to me that is the abuse that is occuring in the patent system. If they set the precedent by allowing the free use of their idea, then in my mind they have given up their rights, and should not be allowed to persue it.

Also, I hope some people are saying that the patent office is overreaching in it's grants, instead of saying that software patents in general are a bad idea. Certainly if someone could come up with an idea that is very novel and is a large leap and implement it too, for example an operating system based on biological tissue instead of hardware, then it should be patentable. But if someone tries to patent a neutral representation of data, it seems too vauge, and hardly novel. In my opinion the problem was that they should not have been able to patent that in the first place.

[Captain_Spock]

"they should....

... they should not have been able to patent that in the first place" (XML it is assumed). I am in total agreement with your point of view. Let's see what are the outcome of the litigation processes if and when they do emerge.

[Ringthane]

Ken, You have a VERY valid point.

This company Scientigo is nothing more than a bunch of greedy, leeching, capitalistic, corporate types. Well, welcome to America. I love my country, but there are those who, in my humble opinon, shame our great nation by behaving like vultures and leeches. May they get what they deserve. The whole patent process needs to be revamped. And fair consideration given to TIMELY litigation. Bottom line: If your going to wait 3 years before you inforce your patent rights, your SOL. PERIOD.

[kartbart]

Ape or human?

Sorry, if you evolved from an ape, you are still an ape. Therefore your application is rejected because patents apply to humans who did not evolve from apes.

[kartbart]

Ape or human?

Sorry, if you evolved from an ape, you are still an ape. Therefore your application is rejected because patents apply to humans who did not evolve from apes.

[Betty Roper]

The future is Scientigo!

We welcome our new XML overlord masters!




... what the hell's a Scientigo?

[Betty Roper]

The future is Scientigo!

We welcome our new XML overlord masters!




... what the hell's a Scientigo?

[R. U. Sirius]

Their Advisory Board are all Lawyers

Take a look at the Scienego website. Their "products" are just a bunch of patents, and their Advisory Board is made up of corporate lawyers.

And their CTO? They don't have one. Hmmm.

What does that tell you?

[Musmanno]

Tells me

they may basically be nothing more than "speculators," of a sort, who buy up patents and try to see what they can enforce them against.

[R. U. Sirius]

Their Advisory Board are all Lawyers

Take a look at the Scienego website. Their "products" are just a bunch of patents, and their Advisory Board is made up of corporate lawyers.

And their CTO? They don't have one. Hmmm.

What does that tell you?

[Musmanno]

Tells me

they may basically be nothing more than "speculators," of a sort, who buy up patents and try to see what they can enforce them against.

[ra66i]

XML is HEIRACHICAL

Both of the listed patents are for non-heirachical structures. XML is by definition a heirachical structure.

They shouldn't get anywhere with XML as their target.

[ra66i]

XML is HEIRACHICAL

Both of the listed patents are for non-heirachical structures. XML is by definition a heirachical structure.

They shouldn't get anywhere with XML as their target.

[Gayle Edwards]

The Governments new patent-plan, will actually encourage this abuse...

In fact, there are quite a few Senators, like Lamar Smith... pushing for legislation which would codify, and allow, patenting ideas that are already in wide-scale use, whether they were invented by the patent-filer, or not.

"...under the proposal, a patent for an invention would be awarded to the first person to file for it, as opposed to the current system, which awards the patent to the first person to invent the item or process".

Full Story...

http://news.com.com/Techies+weigh+in+on+patent+bill/2100-1014_3-5867383.html

So, much for the "Prior-Use" argument.

And as to, thorough analysis by the "Patent Office", to weed-out "Prior Art" and "Obvious inventions", ...non-sense. These are the same people that allowed Microsoft to Patent, "...pushing a button twice to accomplish a task", and allowed someone else to Patent, "...clicking a single web-button to "check-out" from an online commerce--site".

And, I wont even go into the "FAT" patent, in which the Government has apparently decided to refuse to hear any further arguments involving "Prior Art" (of which there was plenty), OR "Obvious Solutions" (its a "vector-table", folks).

In fact, the biggest complaint against the "Patent Office" is their obvious lack of expertise in the "computer field" when granting patents for such technology.

Also, I would like to point out that invalidating a patent in court, once you have actually been sued by a "patent holder", usually costs about one-million dollars, on average. So, paying the extorted "license fee", is usually what most businesses end-up doing.

Hardly a "fair", or practical, system, ...especially for the "...little guy".

[System Tyrant]

Government.

One of the biggest problem with government is they don't usually know jack about how the laws will work in real life. Know I'm not downing the government because you can't expect every politician to have worked in the computer field.

What they really need to do is take a good hard look at how software is designed, developed, created, and thought up. I think they really need to address software patents with logic and not just what makes it easier on the patent office and the legal system.

Oh, well it's not going to happen until they figure out that patents are killing a lot of innovations. Not that patents stop people from having idea's, but spending years fighting for the right to sell your products which is sitting in store rooms while your case is heard and injunctions are upheld is just holding back potential.

[Musmanno]

That's how most of the word does it, Gayle

First to file system. I personally don't like it. I should point out, however, that a first to file system does not eliminate the novelty requirement, and thus prior use can still be a means for invalidating the patent.

[Gayle Edwards]

The Governments new patent-plan, will actually encourage this abuse...

In fact, there are quite a few Senators, like Lamar Smith... pushing for legislation which would codify, and allow, patenting ideas that are already in wide-scale use, whether they were invented by the patent-filer, or not.

"...under the proposal, a patent for an invention would be awarded to the first person to file for it, as opposed to the current system, which awards the patent to the first person to invent the item or process".

Full Story...

http://news.com.com/Techies+weigh+in+on+patent+bill/2100-1014_3-5867383.html

So, much for the "Prior-Use" argument.

And as to, thorough analysis by the "Patent Office", to weed-out "Prior Art" and "Obvious inventions", ...non-sense. These are the same people that allowed Microsoft to Patent, "...pushing a button twice to accomplish a task", and allowed someone else to Patent, "...clicking a single web-button to "check-out" from an online commerce--site".

And, I wont even go into the "FAT" patent, in which the Government has apparently decided to refuse to hear any further arguments involving "Prior Art" (of which there was plenty), OR "Obvious Solutions" (its a "vector-table", folks).

In fact, the biggest complaint against the "Patent Office" is their obvious lack of expertise in the "computer field" when granting patents for such technology.

Also, I would like to point out that invalidating a patent in court, once you have actually been sued by a "patent holder", usually costs about one-million dollars, on average. So, paying the extorted "license fee", is usually what most businesses end-up doing.

Hardly a "fair", or practical, system, ...especially for the "...little guy".

[System Tyrant]

Government.

One of the biggest problem with government is they don't usually know jack about how the laws will work in real life. Know I'm not downing the government because you can't expect every politician to have worked in the computer field.

What they really need to do is take a good hard look at how software is designed, developed, created, and thought up. I think they really need to address software patents with logic and not just what makes it easier on the patent office and the legal system.

Oh, well it's not going to happen until they figure out that patents are killing a lot of innovations. Not that patents stop people from having idea's, but spending years fighting for the right to sell your products which is sitting in store rooms while your case is heard and injunctions are upheld is just holding back potential.

[Musmanno]

That's how most of the word does it, Gayle

First to file system. I personally don't like it. I should point out, however, that a first to file system does not eliminate the novelty requirement, and thus prior use can still be a means for invalidating the patent.

[Thomas, David]

New Law Needed

For corporations, that attempt to create income through the legal system, by postering with bull-**** claims, a new law needs to be passed.

At the very least, they must be charged for the time, energy, and all other resources required to deal with them. If they are un-able to pay the fines. Put these scam artists in jail, in lieu of payment.

If the corporation is not located within the U.S., then they automatically forfeit all legal rights, within the United States for no less than ten years.

Last, but not least. Any lawyer who produces these claims should face a legal review board and be subject to being barred.

[Thomas, David]

New Law Needed

For corporations, that attempt to create income through the legal system, by postering with bull-**** claims, a new law needs to be passed.

At the very least, they must be charged for the time, energy, and all other resources required to deal with them. If they are un-able to pay the fines. Put these scam artists in jail, in lieu of payment.

If the corporation is not located within the U.S., then they automatically forfeit all legal rights, within the United States for no less than ten years.

Last, but not least. Any lawyer who produces these claims should face a legal review board and be subject to being barred.