What is Digg?21 Comments
- abxy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"The whole point of the patent system is long lost, and it is getting worse and worse ..."
--John Carmack (Games for Windows Magazine - May 2007 pg. 22) - theOster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8http://xkcd.com/verizon/verizon.jpg
what now, bitches? - andrewsjp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Finally, at last, a somewhat clear description of the Verizon patents that are in the news. How come it takes so long to get this information out and why is it not more up front in the news reports?
- knupso, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4So how much is sprint paying you? I've done work both and both are telecoms both are evil.
- kushed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yeah Verizon is lame, and people on their network are clueless. $50 bucks for unlimited data compared to $15 with sprint, not to mention their locked down phones and services. I am not on Vonage or anything, but I always thought verizons claims were without merit. There are rumors that Sprint wants to buy Vonage, in which case I think verizon still wins.
- dgrizzanti, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Visit http://www.freetocompete.com/ to show Verizon how you feel!
- xdre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's a slang phrase, not ebonics, actually.
- DesiGUY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Verizon, there... right in your face!
Revise your patents. - rocket777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But nobody is talking about the elephant in the room. Why should there be a patent system at all? It's not something that in-arguably makes civilized life better. It is simply political law, i.e. the use of force to get one's way with others.
There is no natural law that grants the right of intel property. One can only own ideas by using mafia tactics. For example, the RIAA tactics of accusing anyone and everyone it can and settling for $3000 or so.
Of course the problem with force is the problem of government in general. Any system that relies on government to solve its problems is going to be manipulated by those with political power, and politicians are simply mafia dons sitting around making offers that are difficult to refuse. - Uoila, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"drop dime" ???? .... i love the headline, such a wonderful mix of ebonics and market analysis.
- TeatimeGrommit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Utimately, this is where the article leads, so you can go there without wading through the irrelevant points:
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/06/supreme_court_g.html - morrowc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Patents: 6,104,711 and 6,282,574 which seem to discuss 'advanced routing for dns' seem actually to describe any of the DNS 'tricks' (techniques) used by any current CDN system (akamai for instance). I wonder if Verizon can sue Akamai for patent infringement as well?
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yep...the problem is the patent offices don't seem to be equipped to identify what is a real invention and what is an obvious computer application. A patent should always be to encourage new development by guaranteeing time to get a return on investment and not produce a monopoly on a category of applications.
- PatentMagus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hey, I argue with patent examiners for a living. It would be interesting to see what they do with guidance as general as "a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions is precluded from patentability under 103(a)". Personally, I think it would change the arguements, but not the outcomes. The strictest application would have rendered the light bulb, telephone, and cotton gin unpatentable.
In other words, I think this is a bad tack to take toward patent reform. It would be better to widen what the examiners can search and to allow anyone to easily submit applicable prior art for rejecting a pending application. - Jay123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The author of the article doesn't know much about patents. You don't patent a "technology" or a "concept". You patent a process, a machine, a composition of matter, or an article of manufacture. The claims of patents 6,104,711 and 6,282,574 describe a process, and since they passed the patent examiner's tests of novelty and unobviousness, the patents were issued. Novelty and obviousness have strict legal meanings, which don't necessarily match a layman's ideas of those concepts. To put it very simply, novelty means the claims were not previously published anywhere in the world or patented in the U.S, within certain time ranges before the application was filed. For a claim to be non-obvious means the examiner wasn't able to find two prior art references (patents, publications, etc.) that could be combined to give the claim. Furthermore, to make a case for obviousness, there has to be a suggestion or motivation within one of the prior art references to make that combination. So just because, in retrospect, you think it may have been obvious to do "process x", "process x" may have passed all those legal definitions of novelty and obviousness with flying colors. Offering the public the opportunity to suggest prior art references against a patent application would be a great step to add to the patent process, as it's a lot to expect for one patent examiner to find all the relevant prior art.
- argoff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The bottom line is that ALL patents are evil, and this is just one of the many thousands of consequences that keep popping their ugly head up. Patent reform is like slave reform, anything that doesn't abolish it will only make it worse. They are arguably worse than slavery, like how lawsuits in the world court locked out 15 million Africans dying of AIDS - forbidding them to purchase generics made in India. Like how safety devices were held back on cars for over 20 years while millions died. Like how every appliance in every industry has incompatible parts - and people just think that this and the waste and the high costs that result are just a normal part of a free market. Like how millions of people are subjected to drugs that have bizarre chemical side effects, that truly have no need to be there other than that these side effects are patentable, and the people who should have the strongest motive to expose these side effects end up having the strongest motive to cover them up. They say patents are needed to cover high R&D costs: WRONG! In fact, they make it so that sharing research increases risk of helping others patent you out - increasing R&D costs. They say inventors need patents for protection: WRONG! Inventors are good at inventing things, governments and lawyers are good at controlling things. Killing patents would force the market to center around invention services instead of invention controls. They say patents are property and incentive: WRONG! They said that about slaves on the plantation too, but it didn't make it so.
- jojamo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Verizon is the devil. They are are making huge profits but still they are stripping away employee's pension plans, sending jobs over to India and now they are trying to claim a patent that they don't even own because it is threatening their monster profits!?
If yr on Verizon wireless and being overcharged, cancel. Sign up for a sprint sero plan (using any Sprint employees e-mail address (attainable on Sprint business cards)) . Switch yr phone to "roaming only" and you will be on Verizon's network at a quarter of the price! - pooflinger1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Acutally, Verizon Landline and Verizon Wireless are two seperate companies. So cancelling your cellular service will impact the verizon landline by ZERO.
- relic2279, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0By the way, please don't confuse Verizon with Verizon Wireless. They're 2 seperate companies.
Similar to AT&T. AT&T's wireless division had no affiliation with AT&T landline. They only leased the name. When their lease was up, they sold to Cingular. - relic2279, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Let me start off by saying I carry Verizonwireless cell service and I've used them all (was in wireless sales).
Service wise and call reliability, they are one of the best hands down. But thats where the positives end.
I worked for Solectron. A company that Verizon subcontracts for their instore technicians.
Lemme tell ya. I was there for 2 years. Ended up at 13.10 and hour + bonuses, paid vacation and paid sicktime before getting canned (Lived in Northern Ohio).
Verizon's regional manager (Marni) decided to cut us. Go down to 2 techs per store, we had 4. Funny thing is, we needed 5-6 for our store because of traffic. We were so understaffed it wasn't funny.
Alot of the problem lies with management as well. As they're the ones making calls that imediately affect the employees. Alot of the senior techs were disappearing so it wasn't a suprise to me. Cut the workers who are making the most per hour to save a dime.
This is just a warning to Verizon wireless customers. The result of these decisions ultimately impact the customer. The customer is definately not getting the best customer service. We were having problems as it were because of understaff. I can only imagine how they're handleing it now. Because of carrier consolidation, they are figuring they can get away with alot more... to (supposedly) save money. When in fact all its doing is inflating stock holders pockets. As Verizon Wireless has seen the best gross profit year over year.
They're always bragging about their profits per quarter on the intranet yet they're always "cutting costs".
I guess this would be good news for the stock holders and Vodaphone. But not for us workers(ex) and definately not for consumers. This company was one of the best companies I've ever worked for. Now, it's another unsafe, nonreliable blunder. Beware. - relic2279, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0
OH and I'm looking for employement. I have 2 years management experience, and 6 years in the Wireless Industry. (3 years sales, 3 years customer/Technical service) Must be in NE Ohio. Have resume. Email at hollywoodchad7@yahoo.com.
My unemployement is due to verizons great technican downsizing. Thanks..
-Chad
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 