Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo
|
Meh
At the risk of starting yet another IP-law flamefest
and while I do not support some aspects of copyright and patent law, I'm pretty much convinced that the ultimate issue is not that "IP restrictions are evil." Even if IP did not develop into its current form, governments and corporations would just have found some other means to manage/monopolize/control/protect/monetize/commodify/whatever the materials in question.
And since patent law is unlikely to up and die any time soon, it seems to me the primary issues are 1) lack of funds for the patent office to thoroughly and properly check patents prior to awarding them, which 2) leaves it for the courts, which 3) could definitely use some tort reform.
As a result,
if this is a frivolous suit and Spring Design has no real intentions to manufacture and market an ebook reader, then they don't have much to lose. But at a minimum this does not sound like a case where Spring bought a bunch of patents and is bashing the lanscape with subpoenas (*cough* SCO *cough*) -- it sounds more like Spring and B&N had some discussions, perhaps there were some misunderstandings, perhaps B&N said one thing and did another. Maybe it's baseless, but maybe it isn't. It's impossible to say at this point in time.
Also, afaik launching a website has nothing to do whatsoever with filing patents, NDA's or trade secrets, other than possible PR moves. The merits of the lawsuit (if there are any) will depend on whatever Spring can dig up about their talks with B&N, not who launched a website first.