|
|
|
|
#4
10-22-2007, 04:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: calvin ayre challenges patent troll to fight for bodog name and $1
[ QUOTE ]
Why was the bodog name copyright infringement anyway, hadnt the company been set up for years? [/ QUOTE ] It was patent infringement rather than copyright infringement. Presumably, the people who sued them had a patent on some part of the software that they use to run their website. In most parts of the world, you can't patent software -- its seen as akin to trying to patent a mathematical algorithm -- but in the USA, you have all these trolls who have been patenting all manner of nonsense. Some of it trivial, some of it already existing in prior art, etc. etc. Then they lie in wait until someone builds a business that uses something similar, and when they are making a lot of money, they sue and settle for licensing fees. In this case, they sued, IIRC, Bodog didn't show in court, so the troll was awarded the win. But because they've got no assets in the USA, the troll went for what they could get their hands on -- ie. the domain name. If I were the patent troll, I'd do double or quits. Your patent name back plus my two million vs. your two million for the winner of a 25,000 word thesis shoot-out on contract law -- written under exam conditions. Lets see how big his cojones are then. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] 
|
|
#5
10-22-2007, 11:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: calvin ayre challenges patent troll to fight for bodog name and $1
[ QUOTE ]
It was patent infringement rather than copyright infringement. Presumably, the people who sued them had a patent on some part of the software that they use to run their website. In most parts of the world, you can't patent software -- its seen as akin to trying to patent a mathematical algorithm -- but in the USA, you have all these trolls who have been patenting all manner of nonsense. Some of it trivial, some of it already existing in prior art, etc. etc. Then they lie in wait until someone builds a business that uses something similar, and when they are making a lot of money, they sue and settle for licensing fees. [/ QUOTE ] Isn't this pretty much the same thing Blackberry went through? They were sued based on a patent that specified a process or how the e-mail servers were set-up.
|
|
#6
10-22-2007, 12:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: calvin ayre challenges patent troll to fight for bodog name and $1
What a bad ass.
|
|
#7
10-22-2007, 01:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: calvin ayre challenges patent troll to fight for bodog name and $1
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this pretty much the same thing Blackberry went through? They were sued based on a patent that specified a process or how the e-mail servers were set-up. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, exactly. You've got these companies that do nothing that buy up weird little patents for peanuts, just on the off-chance that a few of them would hit. When it does, they find IP lawyers to take the case on a contingency basis and split the winnings. Even if the case is winnable, many firms will settle because the cost of settling is usually less than fighting and winning the case. In IBM vs SCO, it's estimated that SCO have burned through way over $10m dollars in legal costs and they haven't even got to trial yet. Also: I didn't really mean I could kick sbrugby's ass. I have no doubt he could kick my ass at poker and at fisticuffs. I was just making a comparison regarding how pathetic such people sound.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
