Let us hope so but framing this kind of legislation could take a long time. 

Yeah, let's not fool ourselves - all the President did was ask Congress to do something. That and five bucks will get you a Starbucks frappucino.

 

Cheers!

Luke

 

I am not a fan X. PLANE I have yet to use the thing and feel at home.

 

But Mr. Meyers spirit to create something that will be the next generation of flight simulation deserves my unconditional support.

 

I owe alot to flight simulation. I thought me Discipline and organization

 

Where do I sign up

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

What would help Austin best is a major dose of reality poured into the U.S. Patent Office.

 

The so-called patent that this 'individual' file for ownership of... is a technique that's been used on personal computers for many, many years (before smart phones).  This 'individual' took an existing product/idea and claimed it as unique and his own 'original thought' by applying it to a smartphone.

 

It should have been rejected as a patent by the U.S. Patent Office because by granting this patent, it claims that a smartphone is significantly different in application than a PC (which we all know they really aren't at all).

 

I can call someone with my PC.  I can call someone with my smartphone.

I can play games on my PC.  I can play games on my smartphone.

 

I could go on and on... bottom line... this patent is actually invalid as it's a pre-existing technology from the early 80's which would have already exceeded it's 20-year patent protection.

 

You can't pass a law that prevents stupid.

What would help Austin best is a major dose of reality poured into the U.S. Patent Office.

 

It should have been rejected as a patent by the U.S. Patent Office because by granting this patent, it claims that a smartphone is significantly different in application than a PC (which we all know they really aren't at all).

Well, that's always the worst position for checks. In fact there are many software patents filled in europe. The big difference: They are normally not used since courts would revoke them!

 

The laws are simply better defined (as an example: reverse engineering is legal if it is used to ensure the compatibility to another program) and especially the judge is in a much better position to stop the case, revoke the patent and fine the troll. So the risk is pretty high to loose the case and money.