hackthefender

6 ms·

1.
by hackthefender 5y ago
> Clearly we have both had miraculous enlightenment because legally this is “not obvious”. To be precise, legally it is "not obvious back in 1996." There is a lot of stuff that is obvious today that wasn't 25 years ago.
2.
by hackthefender 5y ago
> It goes to show how broken the USPTO is... The patent issued in 1996 and wasn't revisited since then (because never asserted in litigation). The USPTO is a lot different now, a quarter-century later.
3.
by hackthefender 5y ago
I don't think that's the point the commenter was making. The analogous situation would be if someone posted that they made their kitchen table from scratch, and the commenter said that it's great but not everyone has a lathe
4.
by hackthefender 5y ago
For what it's worth, this isn't limited to invalidity. For example, ITC findings that a product infringes also are not binding on courts. The reason for all this is that the ITC is an administrative agency rather than an Article
5.
by hackthefender 5y ago
You can, and everyone always does, litigate invalidity before ITC. (I am an IP litigator who has done it.) Note that the ITC cannot itself invalidate patents like district courts do, but they can--and often do--decline to issue an exclusi
6.
by hackthefender 5y ago
> big tech firms got big and stay big, not because of network effects or political power, but because of their rare expertise; and that they cannot keep their advantage in expertise forever I am pretty sure Facebook got and stays big pri
7.
by hackthefender 5y ago
I left software engineering and became a litigator at one of the big U.S. law firms for the last decade. Here are some thoughts based on my experience. First, although a technical degree is generally required to become a registered patent
8.
by hackthefender 5y ago
Just to say more on this quickly, the relevant inquiry is not "does software progress without patents, yes or no?" Obviously it would. But the relevant inquiry is whether we have made more or less progress now than we would have
9.
by hackthefender 5y ago
> GNU/Linux Free software such as the GNU/Linux and FreeBSD operating systems were developed without software patents. 91% of the top 500 super computers run GNU/Linux. This is misleading. Linux has all sorts of stuff in
10.
by hackthefender 5y ago
Honestly, the worst part about Debian is the name. Everything is deb-this and deb-that. Packages are .deb. Which is his ex-wife. Can you imagine getting a divorce and then for the rest of your life have this massive thing associated wit
11.
by hackthefender 5y ago
The "congratulations" is a bit condescending. AWS clearly benefits from curl. But I guess that is FOSS in a nutshell.
12.
by hackthefender 5y ago
Patent lawyer here. There is a lot of dubious stuff already in this thread, so be careful with legal opinions from people on the internet. Some relevant claim language is below. Of course a lot of this stuff has been known for a while, bu
13.
by hackthefender 5y ago
Here is more context and updates since 2010: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angola_Three
14.
by hackthefender 5y ago
> It is not even theoretically possible to write a piece of software which will behave the same no matter how and where it is run. Can you elaborate on that? I'm sure it's both true and false depending on your definition of &q
15.
by hackthefender 5y ago
What self-hosted option did you pick just out of curiosity? Looking to do the same thing.