Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Doesn't "slay" trolls entirely (Score 3, Insightful) 130

by stevejf (#42912023) Attached to: EFF Proposes a Working Code Requirement For Software Patents
This doesn't necessarily do away with patent assertion entities (trolls). Many PAEs are not actually the original inventors/assignees of the patents, but rather buy them later on and begin filing infringement lawsuits. This requirement would, however, reduce the number of startups-turned-trolls who filed and were granted patents but never followed through with development. It also might make the provisional application system more useful, allowing start-ups to file provisionals to establish priority, but also requiring them to develop a working prototype before granting a utility patent.

Comment: Vitamin D (Score 1) 131

by stevejf (#42807041) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Open-Source Forensic Surveillance Analysis Software?
I use vitamin D software to monitor the webcams in my apartment. It does a pretty good job detecting whether something is a person or not, and you can configure it to send you an email when it detects something. It also only records video surrounding an event. The starter version is free and has some restrictions in terms of total cameras, but its not that expensive overall. Presumably a place that has a "restricted zone" has a security budget more than $0.

Comment: Re:Not that anyone checked but.. (Score 1) 347

by stevejf (#42785957) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What To Do About Patent Trolls Seeking Wi-fi License Fees?
It isn't owned by AT&T, though it was the original assignee. As you can see here, its changed hands a number of times: Most recently (5/2012) the patent was assigned to "Clearview Innovations" Its info is listed here:,%20LLC It's possible that there was some unrecorded assignment after that, but based on available information from USPTO, Clearview is the current owner.

Comment: Re:Face saving (Score 1) 111

by stevejf (#42765223) Attached to: Judge Koh Rules: Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe
This is just wrong. I work with individual inventors all the time in order to help them sell or license their portfolios. Regardless of how the buyers or licensees plan on using the invention, at the end of the day the inventor has money in his or her pocket, and many use the funds to continue working on new projects. They have no doubt reaped the benefits of their patents, without litigation.

Comment: Re:Isn't a door latch prior art? (Score 1) 211

by stevejf (#42754819) Attached to: Micron Lands Broad "Slide To Unlock" Patent
This isn't a submarine patent. It's a continuation claiming the 2000 priority of its parent, US 6,766,456. A submarine patent is a patent that, for some reason or another, takes a very long time from application filing to issuance, hence "popping up" like a submarine. This patent actually made it through the USPTO in under a year.

"Now this is a totally brain damaged algorithm. Gag me with a smurfette." -- P. Buhr, Computer Science 354