Comments on: Seagate’s head-settling time? http://storagemojo.com/2008/05/13/seagates-head-settling-time/ Data storage info & analysis Sun, 20 May 2012 13:26:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: John http://storagemojo.com/2008/05/13/seagates-head-settling-time/comment-page-1/#comment-195684 John Fri, 16 May 2008 21:53:26 +0000 http://storagemojo.com/?p=709#comment-195684 Interesting that the first two patents (6336174 and 6404647) were originally assigned to Maxtor and HP respectively. Another strategic benefit of a couple of Seagate's acquisitions. Interesting that the first two patents (6336174 and 6404647) were originally assigned to Maxtor and HP respectively. Another strategic benefit of a couple of Seagate’s acquisitions.

]]> By: Richard http://storagemojo.com/2008/05/13/seagates-head-settling-time/comment-page-1/#comment-195656 Richard Thu, 15 May 2008 05:04:57 +0000 http://storagemojo.com/?p=709#comment-195656 Robin, Thanks for this very good post. This clearly illustrates what I (and many others) have been saying for some time. The US patent system is a cynical scam on a grand scale, largely designed to generate revenue for the USPO … and to boost the incomes of lawyers. Trivial patents are a perfect tool for blackmail and intimidation … not discounting the moral dilemma to professional engineers behind such patents. It seems obvious that the US Patent Office should rule and focus on claims specifically designated as an ‘original invention’. The rest …software and hardware … should be accommodated by the existing product copyright laws. Robin,
Thanks for this very good post. This clearly illustrates what I (and many others) have been saying for some time.

The US patent system is a cynical scam on a grand scale, largely designed to generate revenue for the USPO … and to boost the incomes of lawyers. Trivial patents are a perfect tool for blackmail and intimidation … not discounting the moral dilemma to professional engineers behind such patents.

It seems obvious that the US Patent Office should rule and focus on claims specifically designated as an ‘original invention’. The rest …software and hardware … should be accommodated by the existing product copyright laws.

]]>