I have a hard time seeing how "Windows" is generic. Had Microsoft chosen another word or phrase for their operating system, I don't think I would associate the word "windows" with computers or software. At this point, I think that when someone hears the term "windows" with reference to computers, they immediately recognize it as a computer program, and that "windows" indicates the product comes from Microsoft and no other source.

I know this goes against everything Slashdot discussion board stands for, I disagree with your position, but understand and respect it.

My only question is where does this line of reasoning end? Does it only apply to software? If so, why? Does it have to do with the generally lower cost of development when compared to other industries? Or is it something else? I've never been quite sure why. Another reason I have heard is that an invention patented in a "software patent" is usually obvious. If so, should the PHOSITA for software be higher? Or should software have a different test for obviousness? I am pretty comfortable in saying the SCOTUS won't go for that.

Then let us be thankful we have the judicial system to address those instances where the PTO issued a patent they might not ought to have. No system is perfect.

To me, that suggests you do not believe there is any such thing as intellectual property, since the wrongful taking of property is usually regarded as theft. With how easily you summarily dismiss the notion of intellectual theft, I don't think I will bother to point out the folly in your position.

While I recognize and appreciate the distinction you have pointed out, I think that the method in which innovation is encouraged in the U.S. and the rest of the world could fairly be characterized as a reward. Patent systems only give inventors beginning their inventive work the promise that, if the invention is sufficiently creative and different from the prior art, they will be able to prevent others from copying their invention. This ex post facto system, to me, is equally a reward as well as an encouragement.

This is an extremely difficult determination to make. I suggest that if you make it based on those instances where there is litigation around a given patent, and more to the point the media picks up on it, then your judgment might be skewed. The value of the patent system goes far beyond what the media reports.

Copyrights and patents function very differently. One difference is the so-called independent creation, where if two people write the same code, neither having seen the others, they both have rights to use that code and obtain copyright in it. This protection is very different from the monopoly granted by a patent, which prevents all second-comers, regardless whether they knew of the patent, from practicing the invention. So when comparing copyright and patent law, one does not supplant the other, and frequently they address different issues. Boiling that down, patents protect the idea/function achieved by the code (performed by a machine, of course), while copyright protects the expression of that idea/function (the individual lines of code).

What are you relying on when you say this? Oh, and as a patent agent, I can tell you that patents do nothing simply :)

While that's true to a certain extent, one cannot overlook the value of patents in rewarding innovation by preventing intellectual theft.

I don't see how Google's actions are hypocritical. What is the link between four patents owned by Oracle and Google's entire patent portfolio? If Google's patents are a: invalid and/or b: standing in the way of progress, rest assured Google's competitors will contest their validity, much the same as Google has done here.

I meant reexamination, not reevaluation

It's important to understand that in reevaluation, Oracle's patents would not be considered unenforceable, but simply not patentable as being anticipated or obvious. In reexamination, there is no patent

I've always thought reexamination was a good litigation strategy. There is no presumption of validity, the cost to Google is quite small, and if you believe the Patent Office is reliable in making anticipation/obviousness determinations, then this gives them a more complete body of prior art upon which to make those decisions. Moreover, if Google requested inter partes reexamination, they can still play a role in the examination process and explain an alternative view to the examiner.

Apple needs to work on their claim drafting. IMO claim 1 doesn't recite patentable subject matter. I know Bilski rendered the machine-or-transformation test to no longer be the sole test, but to me that test is failed by claim 1, which makes the eventual allowance of a method claim of that sort unlikely. I'm interested to see how the "control circuitry operable" language of claim 12 plays out, as if it means circuitry able to perform the listed functions, that seems to me that it would fail novelty.

Sounds like someone has a bone to pick.

Your search for a clearly defined boundary of fair use boils down to this question; would you prefer that Congress decide the issue, or would you prefer the courts decide? I would argue that the Courts are better situated, in this context, to figure out what uses out to be protected under fair use. This is so due to the significant implications of rights gained under fair use. If you accept that copyright generally is a good, productive, successful inducement scheme to yield creative works, then taking some of those rights given under copyright away shouldn't be done lightly. The more you expand fair use, the less valuable a given copyright will be to the original author. Given that Congress has to act in a uniform manner and isn't able to feel out the edges of the ramifications of fair use, I posit that courts will produce the most fair and practicable rule for both parties.

In my experience, the majority of people who buy HDTVs and plan to make full use of the improved resolution are those who watch sports. Furthermore, it seems like a reasonable assumption that those who enjoy watching sports are more likely to play sports titles, instead of Gears of War. So when the person interviewed in the article says "imagine what it will be like for FIFA," I think he's got it backwards; I think you will find greater use for included HDMI cables for that population.

Two things. First, pretty much all software sales include a provision that if you do not accept the terms of the EULA, you can return the software and be reimbursed the purchase price. Second, purchasers are made aware that there are additional terms included other than those on the box (or at the time of download). If the software provider has satisfied both of these requirements, there really isn't much problem with an EULA. (Both of these were pretty crucial in ProCD and Hill cases)