Google sued over mobile Chrome by patent firm Google’s mobile Chrome browser is facing its first patent suit in a Texas court. EMG Technology has accused Google of infringing a patent covering simplified navigation on smartphones and tablets. EMG, based in Santa Monica, California, is seeking unspecified damages and the standard injunction preventing the distribution and …
Stop selling anything in Texas. Anything decided by the court only applies to their juristiction, stop selling anything within that area and the problem goes away. If they try this anywhere else it gets laughed out of court which is why they always use them. Lets see how well Texas does when nobody is willing to trade with them.
Unfortunately the East Texas court has ruled that it has juristriction over anything that can be accessed from Texas. Since you can probably install the Chrome app from Texas, the court claims juristriction. Plus a lot of companys have "offices" near the court (often just a single room rented for the duration of the court case) which also allows the court to claim juristriction.
Complete madness.
I've often wondered wether the Texas judges are taking a percentage of the damges.
They can rule what they like but lets see them try and enforce it. If the Texas court came to me and said 'your product can be downloaded in Texas therefore you owe us loads of money' my response would not be polite. They certainly wouldn't get any money out of me and how exactly could they force me to hand it over?
Ahhh!!! You can't imagine the kind of sh&^%&^t you find in patanets:
"A method of navigating the Internet, comprising: displaying on-line content accessed via the Internet, the on-line content reformatted from a webpage in a hypertext markup language (HTML) format into an extensible markup language (XML) format to generate a sister site, the sister site including a portion or a whole of content of the web page reformatted to be displayed and navigable through a simplified navigation interface"
From unix man page at wikipedia:
"The default format of the man pages is troff, with either the macro package man (appearance oriented) or on some systems mdoc (semantic oriented). This makes it possible to typeset a man page to PostScript, PDF and various other formats for viewing or printing."
So any viewer that read one type of markup language and presents result in another type with additional links (or not) is a prior art.
Lynx does it? Linux info viewer? I think so...
People don't hate without a reason. Patent trolls like apple give them a reason.
And, in the lame defence used by itards when it's their cultmasters doing the trolling "it's the system which is at fault, FORCING companies to protect their inventions". So have pity on poor little EMG, just doing their legal obligations to their shareholders and not at all being nasty.
I think there is an extremly simple solution to the patent troll problem that doesn't even require invalidating the software patents they love so much. Just make software patent a special kind of patents, like pharmasuticals, except instead of making them last longer then normal patents, make them last just 2 years, to reflect the rapidly changing landscape of IT. By the time the lawers are able to understand the code, it'll be out of patent.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
