decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Too bad the article missed identifying a very important driving part of the bad patents | 396 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Too bad the article missed identifying a very important driving part of the bad patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 03:07 PM EDT

And I think a paraphrasing on expressed opinion is the best way to outline that problem:

    Lawyer Gene Quinn: it's too bad the Supreme's are trying to limit what can qualify for software patent protections, it's time the Federal Circuit told the Supreme's to stop causing problems!
I wonder how many of those companies investing in software patents are really doing so due to the drive from the Attorney's rather than out of any real desire to patent something they would otherwise not patent. In other words:
    Is the lion's share of the existing problems due to attorney's mis-interpreting what should be patentable and seriously over-reaching on what would otherwise be normally allowed?
When an Attorney passes "code software so you have the representation of accounting sheets like the Balance Sheet on the computer" and then the USPTO stamps it invalid and then the Attorney rephrases it so it's not so obvious what the invention is:
    Is the problem really with "grey Legal area" or with "Lawyers willing to obfuscate till they get a patent"?
I say:
    If the Lawyers that are currently part of the problem would willingly stop being part of the problem - we'd have a much smaller problem to deal with.
But... that's just my humble opinion as a Layman that finds it really, really ironic an Expert of the Field like Gene Quinn doesn't seem to grasp the reality that it is the Supremes that over-rule the Federal Circuit... not the other way around.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )