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
I'm still waiting for an example. | 478 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I'm still waiting for an example.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 09:51 AM EDT
I didn't say the filing lawyer, I said the ones named on the invention.

Oh. I see that now.

Did you know that lawyers are named as the inventor in a huge number of patents. In fact I wouldn't mind betting that in fact the majority of patents these days are for inventions made by lawyers.

These might not be your words, but evidently, you agree with them. And I agree that there are some patents for inventions made by lawyers -- even Abraham Lincoln had one. In any case, it clearly shouldn't be too hard to name one of these patents and point out the lawyer named as the inventor.

Perhaps a lawyer named as an inventor ought to be deposed to explain the invention next time.

Perhaps you don't know this, but the inventors of a patent are very commonly deposed to explain their inventions. One reason this is done by a defendant's counsel is to get, for the record, the words of an inventor saying something damaging about a patent or how poorly the patent actually does explain his invention.

However, as to the filing lawyer re-writing in legalese, you are aware that the USPTO advises patent proposers how the specifications ought to be written and the number of software patents that are not in "full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the technological area to which the invention pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same" is a substantial indication of the rewriting by non-inventors of software inventions (which means the specifications are no longer in the terms required by a skilled practitioner!) and unless the re-writer is also fully cogniscent of the original technology, it cannot be guaranteed to be an exact translation of the original, nor can translation out of legalese guarantee to be correct.

The "advice" given by the patent office is merely an exact quotation of the current law, which, as you know, is NOT enacted by the USPTO. And if the "the number of software patents that are not in 'full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the technological area to which the invention pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same' is a substantial indication of the rewriting by non-inventors of software inventions," then there ought to be many such patents that you can give as examples. Among these examples, there must be at least one simple enough for you to rewrite at least in part so as to give a non-trivial example of how you think it fails to meet these requirements and to show how it should have been written to satisfy your requirements.

Then why don't you become a patent agent, yourself?

because I don't intend to sink that low on the evolutionary scale.

Then I won't ask you to do anything beneath your dignity, such as to draft an entire application. Just choose a single non-trival offending section and rewrite it to show us how you think it should have been done. If your only argument is that you are higher on the "evolutionary scale" than someone who drafts patent applications, then all I can conclude is that ad hominem attacks are the only proof you have.

I'm still waiting for that example.

[ 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 )