Right, because that’s really similar to the case of a guy named Leonardo, from Vinci, ending up being called Leonardo da Vinci, or DaVinci. There are numerous examples of place and trade names becoming surnames - why is this any different?
That’s probably why they get a corner all to themselves at parties. it may be correct, but it’s not useful, or particularly interesting.
Little more. Which is why I said “little more.”
Which they had to do, else they ran the risk of paying more. One way or another they had to pay out big dollars. I’m sorry I didn’t go into exact detail.
There was far, far more than a remote risk. In NTP v. RIM, a ruling WAS, in fact, made that RIM had infringed on NTP’s patent, and Judge Spencer found the infringement willful and issued an injunction against RIM to stop using the patents. That was subsequently appealed and it was during the appeal that the deal was made, so in fact there was an adjudication that the claims against RIM were valid. The deal was made before that decision was appealed, but the decision was in fact made, and it was part of what forced RIM’s hand to give six hundred million dollars to the holders of what amounts to “Wouldn’t it be cool if we could build this?”
Nobody famous uses da Vinci, and the various businesses that have adopted it refer to Leonardo da Vinci. For example, when Dan Brown wrote the Da Vinci Code, nobody had to read more than the title to be referred to the great Leonardo Da Vinci. As for your citations, I think they amply demonstrate that the use of Da Vinci in conversation only refers to the well known Da Vinci. And I deny conflating the two, I’m pointing out that your whole post is hopelessly pedantic. It’s like pointing out that if in fact Schrodinger had a cat, the cat had a name, and the name wasn’t Schrodinger’s Cat and the cat would not have recognized the name Schrodinger’s Cat. All of which is entirely moot, as both Da Vinci and Schrodinger’s Cat are both now really dead and take no offense to being referred to by the public by names pedants get their blood pressure up over.
You might want to read the Da Vinci code where they make fun of their own insistence on calling him Leonardo. It’s a page turner.
No, your “had to” remains your own speculative opinion. Alcatel Lucent won a $1.5 billion verdict against MSFT. And then that judgment was reversed. MSFT did not have to pay big dollars, or any dollars. If RIM had had the cojones to stick out all the appeals, your position that the patent was bogus would possibly, indeed likely (IMHO), have been upheld.
You do know that at the time they settled, the Patent Office had, in parallel reexamination proceedings, issued rejections of many or most of NTP’s claims? Again, RIM made a business decision not to stake a lot on these proceedings. Reasonable men can differ on whether they should have stuck it out.
By the way, even a risk averse party like RIM would not have made the settlement they did, today; there’s almost no likelihood that NTP could, as the system stands now, get an injunction shutting down Blackberry service, which was the doomsday scenario that pushed the settlement.
Mind you, I am not saying dubious patents don’t get issued or lousy juries or judges don’t award lots of money on “wouldn’t this be cool?” patents. I only stepped in to counter the doctrinally-inaccurate position that “infeasible ideas are legally patentable.”
Was daVinci the first to describe a modern ball bearing assembly? (Balls held between two races, with a retaining ring)?
I heard that the Romans employed a crude ball bearing in the axles of their carts.
I think it is correct to say that Leonardo described a lot of things, but did he ever construct working models?
I don’t think so.
Judging from all this interest, the exhibit linked to in the OP might be a worthwhile side trip for anyone who will be in the San Jose, CA area now through January 4th.
I’m going. I’ll buy you a cheeseburger! 
Both trivial and preexisting ideas are, however. And if you pick your enemies carefully you can keep using your armory without ever risking the loss of a single one.
Some lesser-known things that Leonardo da Vinci invented:
the automatic transmission
municipal revenue bonds
the rubber band
electrolysis
the slide whistle
three-card Monte
the spork
the iron lung
the toaster oven
Q-tips
the stump grinder
English muffins
the split-finger fastball
wax lips
freeze-dried coffee
the trapezoid
Moon boots
that crazy hand jive
the McRib sandwich
the platypus
Precious Moments figurines
Styrofoam
the “pull my finger” gag
massage therapy
Velamints
Slim Goodbody
I am not sure how you would quantify “trivial.” Something that was truly only infinitesimally improved over what was previously known should be denied a patent under the “obviousness” or “no inventive step” inquiry found in most countries. Naturally these standards are very very subjective, but the principle of the law is that meaningless improvements don’t qualify for a patent. Of course, in a world where there are millions of existing patents, you can’t require too huge a degree of non-obviousness, or you’d just pack up and stop issuing patents, as at this point, just about everything new is going to be a combination of old ideas.
I am not sure how you would quantify “pre-existing.” There is substantial statutory law that requires “novelty” for a patent to issue.
By that logic we should refer to the mythical second king of Israel as “Bethlehem” and the fellow credited with writing the book of Romans as “Tarsus.” But we don’t, because David and Paul didn’t have surnames, any more than Leonardo did; surnames were not in wide in their cultures use during their lifetimes, and referring to them as such is ethnocentric, short-sighted, and silly. An equallly unambiguous but signficiantly less stupid way to refer to the artist in question would be to write “Leonardo da Vinci” the first time he was referred to in a passage and “Leonardo” thereafter. Otherwise you’re making a mistake as silly as people who write quasi-historical narratives in which Pontius Pilate addresses his most famous victim as “Christ.”
Fella, you specifically said that there is only ONE “da Vinci.” I cited these examples to demonstrate that your claim is simply inaccurate. I’ll grant that these individuals are not famous, but that is irrelevant to your claim that there is only one person by that name. Let’s not move the goalposts in the wake of contradictory evidence, friend.
Which speaks to their ignorance and nothing more.
Which is completely irrelevant to the question of what Leonardo’s name was, or how he should be properly referred to. The fact that people can identify someone despite an inaccurate description is not a good reason for insisting on inaccuracy.
Ah, yes. Dan Brown. The same Dan Brown whose work was ravaged by critics for his pervasive historical, scientific, and mathematical errors – not to mention his severe ignorance of the life of Leonardo da Vinci. Are you sure you want to cite Dan Brown as though he were an authority on matters of history and Renaissance nomenclature?
Oh no you don’t, Mangetout. You specifically said that whatever people call someone is “by definition” his name. I cited this example to demonstrate that your claim is simply inaccurate. Heck, by your logic, if enough people decide to call the black man down the street “Darkie,” then this should “by definition” be considered his name.
You know talk about place and trade names becoming surnames, and ask why that’s different. The difference is that people adopt those names as their surnames, which is doubtlessly why “da Vinci” has become a legitimate surname. It was not a name that Leonardo himself adopted though; quite the contrary, he signed his works as “Io, Leonardo” instead (literally, “I, Leonardo”).
So when I point out that scholars refer to him as “Leonardo” instead, your response is to insist that they sit alone at parties? Do you really want to drag the discussion down to that level?
Now I see the source of all the confusion. It’s those gol durned Canadians! Trying to cop the limelight, eh?
Pretty good show, by the way. I lusted after Helen for a while.
Now that’s just not fair. Brown’s work is the most technically rigorous and historically accurate in the world
Bizarro World.
I read it. I even enjoyed it. But I thought it was fiction.
I don’t feel like mocking you right now, so I’ll pretend you were talking about the bailout plan.
I read, and mildly enjoyed, The DaVinci Code. By Dan Brown.
So inflate your flaccid ego if you will.
Mock away. I’m impervious to your inane mutterings.
I was making a joke, dude, and it wasn’t about you; it was about the bailout package. Though I don’t care for anything Brown has thus far written, I assure you that my library contains far worse trash.
So you were making a joke, and you took my witty reply as serious?
I just didn’t want you to think I was seriously insulting you, as I wasn’t. It’s not like you were praising Piers Anthony, or claiming that you have hordes of genetically engineered monkeys at your command. That would be insane.