|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 05:19 AM EST |
If they apply this standard to all patents, at least 50% of hardware patents
will fail too. On certain other types of patents it could hit 99.9999%.
And the law is that they now HAVE to apply this standard, that the patent
has to show how to build the device so that someone in the field could build
it.
Think of what this means to 'Perpetual Motion Machines' for example (and
yes, some have been patented).
Inability to build the device now becomes another way to invalidate a patent
in the court system.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 12:24 PM EST |
In this instance the Supreme's are Canadian Supreme's.
I don't recall
reading about a specific software patent trial in Canada.
That could be
the result of a number of things including (but way, way not limited to):
I
simply haven't been exposed to said cases so I'm not aware of
them
Patent Lawyers in Canada are far less sure they could get away
with the tactics of their US Counterparts
Patent Lawyers in Canada have
tried and have miserably failed at the lower Courts - remember, pure guess work
on my part but this is a possibility in the realm of possibilities
What
would be really sweet is if the US Supreme's expressed the same sentiment over a
patent at some point:
The patent does not sufficiently disclose the actual
invention and therefore fails the underlying exchange for a patent - patent
invalidated
They have sorta said that when they say the patents are too
broadly worded... but it would be nice if they explicitly verbalized the patent
exchange and the fact that "profit incentive" is only one piece of the whole
much as the Canadian Supreme's have.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 12:50 PM EST |
How do Canadian & US patent law compare? Is this the same as the clear
written description and definiteness requirements that Arti Rai said were
enforced for biotech patents and should be more broadly?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|