and not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Not like anyone really cares anymore (I certainly don't) but it felt appropriate to close the door on this.

Keep in mind that Apple never got what it wanted: products taken off shelves. Even when they were no longer being sold, Apple could not get injunctions against outdated "infringing" products. This started as Steve Jobs' war, and Tim Cook is ending it.

https://gigaom.com/2014/11/20/apple-ends-patent-war-on-android-deal-suggests/

Apple has decided to end a bitter legal war against Google and Android phone makers, and to turn away from patent tactics that have cost the smartphone industry billions of dollars, according to reports and new court filings.

The news comes in part via a landmark court order in which a federal judge agrees to stay a series of lawsuits between Google and a patent consortium known as Rockstar, that is primarily owned by Apple.



And for good measure, it's not just Apple either... the courts have been busy establishing precedents on why software should not be patented:

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/17/7222807/software-patent-invalid-record

Courts have recently grown increasingly hostile to software patents. A June Supreme Court ruling significantly limited the kinds of software inventions that are eligible for patent protection. And even before that ruling, there had been a dramatic increase in the number of legal decisions holding that software-related inventions were unpatentable.

The year isn't even over, but legal analytics firm Lex Machina has new data that shows 2014 has set a new record for cases in which a court rules that a patent shouldn't have been granted because the invention it claims — usually related to software — isn't eligible for patent protection.


Like I've been saying, all the patent nonsense does not benefit the consumer. And now, everyone agrees.

Billions of dollars lost, is this pretty much in wasted time and lawyer cost, or other things as well?

>and not with a bang, but with a whimper.
>
>Not like anyone really cares anymore (I certainly don't) but
>it felt appropriate to close the door on this.
>
>Keep in mind that Apple never got what it wanted: products
>taken off shelves. Even when they were no longer being sold,
>Apple could not get injunctions against outdated "infringing"
>products. This started as Steve Jobs' war, and Tim Cook is
>ending it.
>
>https://gigaom.com/2014/11/20/apple-ends-patent-war-on-android-deal-suggests/
>
>Apple has decided to end a bitter legal war against Google and
>Android phone makers, and to turn away from patent tactics
>that have cost the smartphone industry billions of dollars,
>according to reports and new court filings.
>
>The news comes in part via a landmark court order in which a
>federal judge agrees to stay a series of lawsuits between
>Google and a patent consortium known as Rockstar, that is
>primarily owned by Apple.
>
>
>
>And for good measure, it's not just Apple either... the courts
>have been busy establishing precedents on why software should
>not be patented:
>
>http://www.vox.com/2014/11/17/7222807/software-patent-invalid-record
>
>Courts have recently grown increasingly hostile to software
>patents. A June Supreme Court ruling significantly limited the
>kinds of software inventions that are eligible for patent
>protection. And even before that ruling, there had been a
>dramatic increase in the number of legal decisions holding
>that software-related inventions were unpatentable.
>
>The year isn't even over, but legal analytics firm Lex Machina
>has new data that shows 2014 has set a new record for cases in
>which a court rules that a patent shouldn't have been granted
>because the invention it claims — usually related to
>software — isn't eligible for patent protection.
>
>
>Like I've been saying, all the patent nonsense does not
>benefit the consumer. And now, everyone agrees.
>


______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/81XSukd.jpg

Also a major obstacle to startups that need to meticulously search thousands of patent filings for some obscure filing that patent trolls could sue them for.

Apple's partnership with troll Digitude Innovations is what started the original thread, but the good news is that the tide is turning:

http://www.zdnet.com/patent-trolls-are-starting-to-get-trampled-7000033980/

Patent trolls, which has helped to keep the United States in the economic doldrums, are finally being brought to heel by anti-patent groups and court cases.


http://www.vox.com/2014/11/20/7251877/republican-patent-troll-fight

In a Wednesday speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) outlined a proposal to stop abusive patent lawsuits. "Patent trolls – which are often shell companies that do not make or sell anything – are crippling innovation and growth across all sectors of our economy," Hatch said.

that's straight up a cash play, and they (likely, no one knows yet) got what they wanted

apple AND mcrosoft AND ericsson AND sony

don't want google to go away. they just want another revenue stream and they got it

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

In the most visible case, the injunctions got struck down, in large part due to other appeals courts rulings:

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_26417310/apple-vs-samsung-judge-refuses-sales-ban-samsung

"Apple is not entitled to a court-ordered sales ban on nine Samsung smartphones found earlier this year to violate the iPhone maker's patent rights, a San Jose federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh rejected Apple's arguments that it would be irreparably harmed if Samsung continues selling the infringing smartphones on the U.S. market. Several previous appeals court decisions in the fiercely contested case guided her 42-page ruling.

A federal jury in May hit Samsung with $120 million in damages for copying iPhone technology in the second trial between the two feuding tech titans, although the panel rejected many of the patent claims and dramatically reduced the damage award Apple was seeking.

Koh, who has presided over the four-year legal battle, took the position that Apple has secured enough from its chief rival in the smartphone and tablet wars. As a result, she concluded that no permanent injunction on an older line of Samsung phones, such as the Galaxy S3, is warranted.

It is the latest setback in Apple's bid to use its most powerful legal weapon against Samsung, which is the threat of injunctions on sales of lucrative smartphones and tablets for copying iPhone or iPad technology. With the courts reluctant to impose such sales bans, experts have wondered if Apple might be more inclined to settle its conflict with Samsung instead of pushing forward with lawsuits.

Apple and Samsung already recently settled all of the patent litigation unfolding in courts in other countries but have been unable to resolve their feud in the United States."




So yeah, settle the Rockstar case, get it off the books and stop paying the lawyers.

Because the courts are deciding in favor of LESS software patents... exactly what I was calling for this entire time.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Microsoft was never mentioned in that big ass thread, but you want to bring them up now?

The difference, again, was the focus between Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft just wanted a big, persistent revenue stream, which they got.

Apple's focus from the very beginning ("I'm going thermonuclear against Android") was to pull products off the shelves. The money meant nothing to them... that supposedly stunning $1billion ruling constituted less than a percent of the cash on their balance sheet. Products didn't get pulled, no matter how much you want to try to argue that what Apple was justified in their litigation. You lost, bruh. Let it go. Don't make me bring up vacuums again.


Oh, and AAPL stock? Still setting all time highs....

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL

you made this post.

it's about rockstar.

microsoft is a partner in rockstar.

this thing where you make up an argument so you can say you won it is really tiresome.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

You know, the one where you brought up vacuums and cars.

Yes, I did bring up this post. The Rockstar settlement is likely the last salvo in a software patent war that's basically resolved around the world between Apple and Samsung. Software. Remember that.

> this thing where you make up an argument so you can say you won it is really tiresome.

This thing where you avoid all my arguments so you can say you won it is really tiresome.

Remember when I brought up Judge Posner? And how he was against SOFTWARE patents? You ignored it then, you're ignoring it now.

Remember when I brought up Judge Koh's ruling? In this very thread? And how she ruled AGAINST injunctions? You ignored it then, you're ignoring it now.

Remember when I brought up courts ruling against software patents? In this very thread? You ignored it then, you're ignoring it now.

Why is that, btw? Is it because acknowledging it would mean I was right from the very beginning? But you can't admit that, can you?



For a refresher, here's the thread with one of my responses:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&listing_type=search#275260

I have no idea why you're connecting one thread to another, other than that you've got this weird tendency to pretend you won arguments that either you didn't win, or didn't happen.

google and other android manufacturers are spending huge money on patent licenses.


if you thought there was any possibility of a reality where products were getting pulled, then you never understood the situation at all.

which you didn't.

edit:
also -- "bringing something up" isn't making an argument.

it seems weird that you say I didn't care about things you were talking about in another thread, then you carry them over here so I can not care about them here too.

they're not arguments. it's just you copying something someone else said that you don't get.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

> I have no idea why you're connecting one thread to another, other than that you've got this weird tendency to pretend you won arguments that either you didn't win, or didn't happen.

Sorry, I don't have to pretend. I win all of these with you. AAPL stock, HBO Go, patents, drones... take your pick. The thing about the internet is, these things last forever (unless the mod deletes the threads, that is).

> google and other android manufacturers are spending huge money on patent licenses.

Absolutely. That's always going to be a fact of life when it comes to IP. The difference is, with software, the courts/POTUS/Congress are changing the status quo. You still haven't addressed that part of it yet. I wonder why...

> if you thought there was any possibility of a reality where products were getting pulled, then you never understood the situation at all.

Easy to say with hindsight. I wonder why you've never said this before though.... because that's never been your position?

https://warosu.org/data/ck/img/0054/34/1400084863723.jpg

And why do I know you're lying? Because the reality is an injunction actually did happen, against the Galaxy Nexus. Good thing cooler minds prevailed and reversed it in appeals though:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/11/3488740/appeal-reverses-injunction-samsung-galaxy-nexus-in-the-us

> which you didn't.

Oh, didn't I? Then, again I ask you, why are the courts deciding in my favor?

I'm going to link this exchange:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&listing_type=search#275208

For ease of reading, here are some quotes from you:

"I don't care in any direction that they patent things. everyone does."

"everyone does it tho... when you open your car door (if it's a nice car) all that shit, about how it works and makes it feel the way it feels, is patented. every bit of it."

"there is no motherfucking difference. the only difference is what you think you know about how these companies do business."

And here's my direct response:

"Yes, everyone patents shit, and everyone litigates. I've never denied that. But you've been popping off about how it's just "business as usual" when it's not. The extreme escalation has gotten to ridiculous heights and it's symptomatic of a broken system (confirmed by a U.S. judge that's probably smarter than everyone on this forum put together)."

Well, would ya look at that. "Symptomatic of a broken system". Such wise words being quoted. And damn, I said that in 2012? I need to pat myself on the back for that shit. Unsurprisingly, you replied back with some ad hominem shit... just like clockwork.

You didn't address it then, and of course you're not gonna address it now.

> they're not arguments. it's just you copying something someone else said that you don't get.

Do you want to reword this statement? I don't think it means what you think it means.

you don't have a stance to be right on

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Same shit every time! Once you run out of swerves and moving goalpost excuses, you resort to "you're wrong" with no corroboration whatsoever.

Like. Fucking. Clockwork.

all we have to do is read what you said

!!!AN INJUNCTION HAPPPENNNNNEEDDDD!!!!

yeah. find anyone who wanted to buy a phone and couldn't because of an injunction. it didn't happen. there many injunctions, and most of em were for phones that were either entirely or practically off the market by that time.

it's all about leverage.


you're so stupid, that you didn't even understand the point of my question about microsoft.

the entire reason they bought the nortel patents, was to license them. because that's what they do. they have reached exactly what they were looking for when they licensed them. it's not a change in direction at all.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

BWAHAHAHHAAH you're fucking trying to weasel out of this on fucking SEMANTICS.

So, first there was never a risk of products getting pulled off the shelves.

Then I pointed out an actual injunction against an actual product.

And now it's "oh people could still buy them off the shelves".

How much further can you move these goalposts bro? You're painting yourself into a small ass corner there.



And LOL your reading comprehension is shit. In the link just above, Judge Koh ruled AGAINST injunctions for phones, even if they're outdated or off the market. That SUPPORTS my point, not refutes it. Apple couldn't even get injunctions against junky budget phones Samsung didn't care about anyways.

Fucking hilarious.

then sure


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Check.

I successfully dodged all of your arguments, since they weren't aimed at what I said.

this is entirely accurate.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

The fact you still haven't said a single word acknowledging the courts (you know, the place the actual litigation takes place) is damning.

Or acknowledged Congress. Or POTUS. Or the USPTO.

Dodge.

Check.

so, it's damning that things I haven't discussed, I'm not discussing?

if you want to believe I'm arguing things that aren't being argued, then that's a logical viewpoint.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Because it refutes your entire position.

It did in 2012, and it still does now.

my position seems super secure

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Too bad when you say it, it has nothing to do with my actual point about the courts shitting on software patent litigation, in large part due to Apple's actions.

I find it hilarious you're trying to purposely be vague and obtuse in a desperate attempt to win this argument. Your arguments are literally getting dumber with each additional post.

The corner you painted yourself in is smaller than the space in your avatar.

you use other people's words and don't know what they mean.

that's it.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

with zero conviction.

You've resorted to speaking in vague insults, because every time you try to bring some sort of "factual" basis to your arguments, I shut you down.

Your arguments are literally getting dumber with each post.

facts you made up sure, but I guess that's SEMANTICS DODGE GRAMMAR

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

And in the exchange below. And in the other HT thread I linked. Often accompanied with actual links detailing real world events that support my position, which your responses are curiously lacking.

The funny thing is every time I detail these facts that shut down your argument(s), you respond with: "you know nothing about patents" or "absolutely none of these things are true" or {insert ad hominem attack here}.

Like. Fucking. Clockwork.

long live patent war.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-21/samsung-files-complaint-to-block-nvidia-chips-from-u-s-1-.html

Samsung Files Complaint to Block Nvidia Chips From U.S.

it's never not been like this.


samsung doesn't want nvidia's chips banned forever and ever and ever. and nvidia doesn't want samsung's chips gone forever and ever and ever

they want a check, they want a deal, they want negotiation. they want leverage.


same as always.

can we crowdfund wallychamp a business degree?

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

My username is right there. But you've shown a consistent lack of reading comprehension, so, again, not surprised.

Btw, loved you in Mockingjay. Really nice work helping out the rebellion there. Too bad you're actually nowhere near as smart as the character you played in that movie.

but it SEEMS like... this has to do with hardware, no? Not software? You know, the crux of this ENTIRE debate?

This is the problem with you: you have zero sense of nuance, or general reading comprehension. This isn't about the patent system in general... it's about SOFTWARE patents.

Why am I not surprised though? You ARE the one that brought up Hoover and BMW (LOL) in a debate about software patents.

like, not the first thing

also, funny that you focus on apple wanting hardware pulled from shelves. but you really think the problem is software patents

I wonder why apple never sued anyone who just made a few apps.

eh, whatever. wallysmith (got it right!) has convinced me, big companies aren't going to sue each other over patents anymore, while still working with each other as they're suing each other.

It seems weird to me that I would take Steve Jobs' thermonuclear war comment super seriously, even as Samsung was manufacturing many of the components inside the products he was selling. I mean, it's true that Steve Jobs said a lot of shit that he went back on. In fact, it was kind of his thing.

But nope, wallysmith says we're tied to it, and I'm tied to it, somehow, because apparently I'm a big supporter of apple, and patent warfare. I said that at some point in some thread.

oh, and I'm sure tesla's patents are being used by dozens of car companies right now.

patent warfare is over everybody, remember how much your lives have changed!

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

You think of them in some sort of vacuum.

> also, funny that you focus on apple wanting hardware pulled from shelves. but you really think the problem is software patents

Yes, Apple used software patents to pull hardware off the shelves. You know, hardware, Apple's primary revenue source. Remember this.

> I wonder why apple never sued anyone who just made a few apps.

Because people who "just made a few apps" aren't their primary competitors in selling hardware. This is a very easy connection to make: Apple litigated (through software) because Samsung was threatening their primary business (through hardware). These things are connected, stop having tunnel vision.

> eh, whatever. wallysmith (got it right!) has convinced me, big companies aren't going to sue each other over patents anymore, while still working with each other as they're suing each other.

I've never said companies will never sue each other anymore... now you're outright lying. If a company has any sort of leverage, they're going to use it. The difference is the software patent litigation landscape is changing... in large part due to bullshit behavior from Apple.

> It seems weird to me that I would take Steve Jobs' thermonuclear war comment super seriously, even as Samsung was manufacturing many of the components inside the products he was selling. I mean, it's true that Steve Jobs said a lot of shit that he went back on. In fact, it was kind of his thing.

There's that vacuum thing again. Samsung is a massive multinational conglomerate composed of many divisions. Just because their telecom division has issues with Apple doesn't mean their manufacturing division wants to kill their lucrative business with Apple.

The funny thing is, you know this... I think?

> But nope, wallysmith says we're tied to it, and I'm tied to it, somehow, because apparently I'm a big supporter of apple, and patent warfare. I said that at some point in some thread.

Nope, never said you were a big supporter of Apple. Your position was that it was "business as usual" and everyone sues for all patents. Which is generally true... except here. Where the courts and Congress agree with me now. So... there's that.

> oh, and I'm sure tesla's patents are being used by dozens of car companies right now.

It takes time to make a car. Years, in fact. And the battery factory hasn't even started being built yet.

But uh... BMW sounds like they're interested:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/24/us-tesla-motors-germany-idUSKCN0J80NC20141124

(Reuters) - U.S. electric carmaker Tesla Motors (TSLA.O) is in talks with Germany's BMW (BMWG.DE) over a possible collaboration in batteries and lightweight components, Tesla's Chief Executive Elon Musk told German weekly Der Spiegel.




*pops collar*

well then that proves BMW is using tesla's "open source" patents.

if that were true, there would be no need for discussion, because BMW could just use the tech.

it has nothing to do with the shit you were excited about. this is companies negotiating, like they always do.

like you know nothing about.

you claim patent warfare is over, companies keep suing each other over patents.

you don't know enough about this discussion to be in it

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Again, tunnel vision with no nuance.

>well then that proves BMW is using tesla's "open source"
>patents.

Granted, no, it's not proof just yet. But if they do come to an agreement? How else do you think BMW is supposed to leverage the supercharger infrastructure if they don't use Tesla's drivetrain? What exactly are you arguing here?


>
>if that were true, there would be no need for discussion,
>because BMW could just use the tech.

And what, build their own battery factory? That's the point of the battery factory... BMW (if they jump on board) buys the batteries, leverage Tesla's patents, then... sells electric car using an already existing charger network. That's the plan. Let's see if it happens.

>
>it has nothing to do with the shit you were excited about.
>this is companies negotiating, like they always do.
>
>like you know nothing about.

LOL.... you're one to talk.

>
>you claim patent warfare is over, companies keep suing each
>other over patents.
>
>you don't know enough about this discussion to be in it

Dunno... I claimed a flawed software patent system back in 2012, and the courts/POTUS/USPTO are proving me right. So... clearly I do know enough about this discussion to be in it.

Are you looking at yourself in a mirror while typing these statements? It sure feels like it.

sounds like they're still a thing.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

So let me ask you... is Google participating in offensive litigation trying to pull competitor's products off the shelves?

Convenient though that you ignored all my other points above though. Still haven't addressed the courts yet? What's that, at least 6-7 times you've dodged that now, right?

http://www.brendanemmettquigley.com/graphics/painted-into-a-corner.gif

no.

the lawsuits are getting resolved. because that's what happens eventually. it takes a while.

it doesn't prove anything about anything, especially your poorly informed views on patents.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Check.

Ad hominem.

Check.

...


Apple kicked Samsung's ass in courts around the world and billions of dollars so they didn't waste money and signed agreements with HTC. Microsoft continues to make more off Android and partners but they didn't stifle innovation... *smirks and looks into camera*

Let's not forget that your main strawman argument when Apple won was innovation would cease. IT HASN'T CEASED, SO HOLD THIS L. Apple merely fought to protect its' IP and it won.

You won't make a post of butthurt over Samsung suing NVIDIA.

Apple's clear W helped Android OEMs because it forced them to clearly focus on different designs for hardware. In a weird way it put Samsung in bad place moving forward due to sticking with the same design. Some Android OEM will topple Samsung next year. They are clearly vulnerable. It might be a combination of Xiaomi and another OEM elsewhere but it's happening.

He's lost, and it's dark outside.

Go look up the hurt in your post after Apple's resounding W. You seemed real hurt by it at the time and I was worried about you.

Still waiting for a response here:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&listing_type=search#280786

And here:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&listing_type=search#281469

And here:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&listing_type=search#283033

And here:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&listing_type=search#284857

Apple's the only company that reports their sales so we're left with estimations from analysts for Samsung.

I already ethered you in your own post. Try harder next time.

I asked you direct questions in each of those posts. None of which you answered.

Try again.

Apple's victory is certain as is your loss on all of this.

Outright lying. Click those links, you didn't answer shit.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

You're not convincing anyone here.

WALLY

SMITH


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

you're worse at that than you are at knowing anything about patents.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

You're the "cool" police now?


LOL


You got Kira cosigning your arguments... that's a loss any which way you sell it

and you don't understand business.

you don't.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>the only thing I've argued is that you don't understand patents

>and you don't understand business.
>
>you don't.


Yet you're consistently proving yourself wrong.


With my help, of course.

And this makes me a saaaad panda :(

we can't disagree because most of the things he posts aren't actual statements of anything.

he's very angry that I'm dismissive of him

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

like the Tesla talks with BMW just announced today.

Once those batteries reach economies of scale, with a supercharger network already in place, we're just gonna see more and more companies line up.

Toyota did just release their hydrogen fuel cell car though, and are looking for help to build a network in CA... that'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

yeah, cuz that has more to do with their patents than the big ass battery factory they're building and extensive network of chargers that already exist.

that's why anyone has mentioned patents at all in relation to that.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Cot damn, you're making this shit too easy.

Oh, now your position is that "no duh they're talking, it's cuz of the battery factory and super chargers"

Where in this very post, you LITRALLY said:

"their logic is about making shit tons of money.

which means not being beholden to the whims of technology someone else built.

if they could make their cars run only their own gas, they'd do it.

they have very little incentive to work with tesla under the best conditions."

You ACTUALLY said these things, right here:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=290720&mesg_id=290720&listing_type=search#290756

How fucking stupid are you? Under the best conditions BMW would never work with Tesla... except now they're working with Tesla under apparently not the very best conditions?


You're ethering YOURSELF Beetee... I don't even need to bring in any new information!

not *working with tesla. everyone talks.

and as usual, you've decided to cherry pick one part of my statement and claim that's what I said, when anyone can go in the thread and see my first reply about it.

it's that simple

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Nevermind the fact that you did a COMPLETE 180 from your position before, because supposedly "under the very best conditions" there's no CHANCE these companies would work under Tesla right?


HAHAHAHAHAHA

> and as usual, you've decided to cherry pick one part of my statement and claim that's what I said, when anyone can go in the thread and see my first reply about it.

Well duh. And people can see my reply to that, then your reply to my reply, and so on. And at the end of that exchange, you say dumb shit like the one above.

Like I said, I paint you in a corner every fucking time

Got a lil hip hop flavor for you this time:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPKrHCWw3vY9_kVeL4AzgtYVuaYLVij-WpTYzEaoBi4Hu3YNpo

is a quote, and part of it isn't.

it' almost like you're trying to squeeze stuff in I didn't say.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Check.

As for trying to "squeeze in stuff I didn't say", does that sound familiar?

Ok, so let me rephrase my statement above:

"Nevermind the fact that you did a COMPLETE 180 from your position before, because supposedly "under the very best conditions" there's these companies would work under Tesla right?"

Revised. Done.

Still doesn't change the fact you did a complete 180 from your position less than six months ago.

Fact.

"Nevermind the fact that you did a COMPLETE 180 from your position before, because supposedly "under the very best conditions" there's these companies would work under Tesla right?"

this isn't a sentence

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

"Nevermind the fact that you did a COMPLETE 180 from your position before, because supposedly "under the very best conditions" there's |very little chance| these companies would work under Tesla right?"

Done deal.

180 swerve. Lol.

You can't backpedal fast enough. You're just resorting to these little swerves cuz you can't argue the actual facts.

Like. Fucking. Clockwork.

I figured you out years ago, it's awesome I don't even need to try anymore to make you look like an idiot.

and then it didn't say anything because you left large parts out.

if you're going to make it up, it should at least be readable.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

The history of your backpedalling and idiocy is all out there.

Keep trying to create strawmen, this is fun.

Don't think I didn't notice your lack of response to my posts above...

there's no other way to see that.

now that you have a readable statement that you'd like to attribute to me -- I don't know where "under" comes from?

I still think it will be interesting to see if anyone uses their tech.

so far, toyota and benz have both looked, investigated and walked away.

now BMW is (apparently) looking.

seems relatively consistent

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Both Toyota and Daimler are selling their stakes in the company, but Daimler's still working with them on other projects. Daimler didn't exactly "walk away".

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/10/22/daimler-mercedes-benz/17706037/

Germany's Daimler, parent of Mercedes-Benz, says it has sold its 4% stake in Tesla Motors but adds that work on electric-car projects will be unaffected.

> seems relatively consistent

I beg to differ. You're still the person that typed this in June:

"they'd rather nothing happen than have something happen that gives control to another outside party."

"their logic is about making shit tons of money. which means not being beholden to the whims of technology someone else built."

"they have very little incentive to work with tesla under the best conditions."

And now you're saying this today:

"cuz that has more to do with their patents than the big ass battery factory they're building and extensive network of chargers that already exist."

You know the batteries that Tesla's superchargers are only compatible with Tesla batteries right? Which means if BMW uses Tesla batteries, they would be "beholden to the whims of technology someone else built".

So uh... yeah. You're making this too easy for me.

And LOL on us talking about Tesla in a software patents post.

You took the bait hook, line and sinker. I'm shutting all of your shit down and making you look silly, and here you are talking about grammar and slang and other shit entirely irrelevant to the topic, because your arguments are built on straw.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Check.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Check.

Your arguments are literally getting dumber with each post.

it's getting better with every post you make.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I called a broken system in 2012 and the real world is playing that out.

Just because you type it, doesn't make it true.

You claim to understand patents, but you can't even articulate an argument.

without recognizing other parts of their argument

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Who was I "copying"? And what other parts of their argument wasn't I understanding?

is this real life?


I do't understand how someone can see that Google is cutting a check to end a lawsuit against it over patents, and say "well, that proves there's no point to anyone suing anyone over patents anymore"

like, we all have eyes right?

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

> I do't understand how someone can see that Google is cutting a check to end a lawsuit against it over patents, and say "well, that proves there's no point to anyone suing anyone over patents anymore"

And tunnel vision. And zero nuance for argument whatsoever.


Patents exist. If patents exist, companies will sue. Apple overextended these boundaries, in large part by seeking injunctions against their major competitors' phones.

The difference now is that software patent litigation reached a level of unsustainability that the US Patent Office, the President of the United States, the Supreme Court and Congress are working to change.

Patents still exist. And if patents still exist, companies will still sue.

The difference is that the software patent war between Apple and Google (via Samsung's proxy) is now basically over.

Just like this war between us. You lost, and now you're just shooting yourself in the face.

just this week samsung and nvidia asked for injunctions on each others products

because that's what they do

it's how it works.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

And I've agreed, numerous times. Patents aren't going away, but the nature in which software patents get issued ARE changing.

And last I checked, Samsung and Nvidia's court fights were over hardware, not software.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

What's sad is you're trying to cherry pick and swerve and hammer on this minor points when you've addressed NONE of my major points.

You're really, really bad at this. Like the complete opposite of Beetee in Mockingjay bad.

there's nothing to address.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

We can start there.

but we can't. because you don't.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It's telling your only "defense" when I bring those up is "you don't understand it".

It's like you're typing to yourself, and wishing it weren't true.

Courts. USPTO. Congress.

We can start with that.

Like I don't understand -- is the headline of this post meant literally? Like because this one lawsuit is over, wasteful patent litigation is now null and void? Is that really the editorial takeaway for these news items being presented by you, wally?

started by Jobs.

Nuance is key. Never have I said litigation will completely stop on patents. I've repeatedly stated that if a company has leverage, they'll exercise it; whether it's in the courts or the marketplace or wherever.

The difference is when Apple (and others, although they were the most visible) overextended the definition of "intellectual property" regarding software patents and became offensive litigants in courts all around the world.

We saw that play out with Apple vs Samsung, which really spurred the discussion of what should be defined as "intellectual property", when patent rules were written almost a hundred years ago. Judge Posner (who oversaw Apple vs Motorola) defined it best: patents make sense in industries with heavy R&D where it can take years to recoup costs (like pharmaceuticals), and it doesn't make sense with something like software code, which is highly iterative.

Once Tim Cook took over, the software battles between the biggest names started winding down. The USPTO started rejecting software patents it issued previously. There were national roundtables between tech giants and the USPTO held in Silicon Valley and NY, to try and define what should and shouldn't be patented. The POTUS addressed it in the State of the Union. Appeals courts all around the country started ruling against patent holders. Congress is considering revising patent rules for software. Earlier this year Apple and Samsung settled in *all* courts around the world, along with the prominent cases here in the States.

But no, patent litigation isn't going to disappear completely. Again, if a company has leverage over a competitor most times they're going to use it. But the "thermonuclear war" between Apple and Android? Yeah, that's over... at least in the courts.

was I wrong about that?

And while I'm happy to hear progress is being made, until the actual # of yearly patents issued drops significantly, and older, overly broad patents are explicitly eliminated, I don't think the environment has gotten any cozier for anyone who can't afford a multi-year legal fight in lieu of settling (or going out of business).

to the US.

they don't sell them here because those software patents wallychamp says are invalid, are actually still valid, and they'd get sued to bolivian.

when software patents are no longer an issue, you'll know, becuase xiaomi will suddenly be the second biggest phone company in the US

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I'm not going to jump into that arena. But the way software patents were often issued (like "slide to unlock"), they were approved with overly-broad definitions, lending themselves well to litigation.

It didn't help that the USPTO was inundated with patent applications and had nowhere near the expertise or manpower to properly evaluate them:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/18/us-usa-congress-patents-idUSKCN0J21XP20141118

"The patent office has long been under fire for taking more than two years to approve patent applications. It also has been criticized for approving what some say are weak patents, especially for software. The result is what many call excess litigation, as patent holders sue technology companies for infringing patents that critics say should not have been granted."

But yes, I do agree with you. Until the entire broken system is reformed (with respect to software patents), no real change will be felt. Like I said though, major steps are being made:

USPTO roundtable on 12-2-14:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/11/10/uspto-to-hold-crowdsourcing-roundtable-on-december-2-2014/id=52050/

"At the roundtable, topics for discussion will include: (1) how the USPTO can utilize crowdsourcing tools to obtain relevant prior art in order to enhance the quality of examination and issued patents; and (2) ways the USPTO can leverage existing private sector solutions for the electronic receipt and hosting of crowdsourced materials as a means to provide prior art to examiners further to the USPTO’s request for information"

The courts set a new record for rejecting software patents in 2014:
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/17/7222807/software-patent-invalid-record

"In 2014, the trial court rulings in the above chart were overwhelmingly focused on software patents, the subject of this summer's Supreme Court ruling. By my count, 17 of the 20 rulings were in software patent cases. Also, 17 out of 20 rulings have been made since the Supreme Court's decision.

Of course, there are a lot more than 17 software patents in the world, and rulings like this are never going to invalidate more than a small fraction of them. But Rakers says these rulings will shift the balance of power in every patent dispute. Patent holders, she says, "might not go through expensive litigation knowing that their claim is most likely going to be held invalid." At the same time, she said, "there are unresolved issues of what exactly is or is not patent-eligible subject matter." So expect to see a lot of litigation over this issue in the coming years."


Another Software Patent is Ruled Patent-Ineligible - Are Business Method and Software Patents at Risk?

http://www.law.com/sites/jdsupra/2014/11/21/another-software-patent-is-ruled-patent-ineligible-are-business-method-and-software-patents-at-risk/?slreturn=20141025123832

"Software patents continue to be examined and held patentable by the USPTO, even under the Preliminary Examination Guidelines in View of Alice. It is expected that the Final Examination Guidelines will be issued by the end of November, and in those guidelines there will be instruction as to what business method and software inventions are patentable under Section 101. There also remains the possibility that legislative action (by the U.S. Congress) could help ease the anticipated effects of Ultramercial III and other judicial decisions based on Section 101 on business method and software patent applicants."

Soooooooooo


and at this point I can't help but lol at presenting upcoming "topics for discussion" as evidence of change. Are you AWARE of how long it takes a government agency to change *anything*? Even if they leave that meeting resoundingly stating all prior patents need to be nullified (which isn't even on the agenda, the statement seems to indicate more they want to work with private sector to streamline protecting prior art, i.e. protecting the already monied interests maintain their dominance in the patent wars) it would take years and years for anything to be done in that regard.

But whatever -- I'm relieved *some* progress is being made on the issue, but it's extremely incremental, and in no way approaching the reforms needed to help clear the road for business.

Is this stuff supposed to happen overnight? I'm WELL aware of how long it takes government to do shit... but it has to start somewhere.

And no, they're not going to that meeting to "nullify" all prior patents... how did you possibly get that notion?

As for this:

> which isn't even on the agenda, the statement seems to indicate more they want to work with private sector to streamline protecting prior art, i.e. protecting the already monied interests maintain their dominance in the patent wars

The exact opposite is true. The definition of "prior art" is being broadened, specifically so fewer software patents will be issued.

And in that Vox link:

"Courts have recently grown increasingly hostile to software patents. A June Supreme Court ruling significantly limited the kinds of software inventions that are eligible for patent protection. And even before that ruling, there had been a dramatic increase in the number of legal decisions holding that software-related inventions were unpatentable."

This actually supports SMALL BUSINESS, because there are fewer situations that "monied interests" can enforce their IP against smaller competitors.

But yeah, it will likely take several years for true structural reform. Nothing in government happens overnight, especially with so much at stake. At least the courts are starting to set precedents in discouraging litigation... that's happening now.

but yeah, an entirely different thing being resolved in exactly the way everyone thought it would is a big surprise and shows that you know all about patents because...you say so?

gotcha

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

The court battle on Judge Koh's docket? Is that the one you're claiming is "still going"?

> an entirely different thing being resolved in exactly the way everyone thought it would is a big surprise and shows that you know all about patents because...you say so?

You want to explain yourself here? What do you mean by "exactly the way everyone thought it would"? I'm really curious, because I'm about 99.9% positive I know what you're hinting at, and I'm 99.9% positive you're wrong.

Please cite real world examples supporting your position please. And I'll be sure to cite some for mine.

my position is the real world. you can't cite examples to oppose what's actually happening. you've already posted all the info, thanks!

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

You're resorting to more nonsensical bullshit because you know if you post anything substantial, you're gonna get caught.

Every time I ask you to corroborate your position you resort to this vague assertion of facts that have no connection to actual facts.

"my position is the real world" <---- bwahahhahaah

Too bad your version of "the real world" is one that doesn't exist.

> you've already posted all the info, thanks!

I did, you're welcome!

.

glad to be of service