Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 20 2013 @ 01:25 PM EST |
Despite the fact that the PTO is obviously incompetent in determining the
validity of patent claims, the *law* says that the determination of the PTO must
be presumed valid unless *proven* otherwise. ICK![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Sunday, January 20 2013 @ 01:29 PM EST |
1. can happen overnight, should the US Supreme
Court ever decide to do it, and if they are
ever convinced that software is indeed mathematics
and hence unpatentable subject matter, it will
happen. Not only that, but it would be
retroactively effective against all the stupid
patents that have already issued, not just
new ones.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 21 2013 @ 12:48 PM EST |
All it takes is one Jury to invalidate a patent and it's invalidated
forever.... unless the Supreme's overrule the Jury.
Entity X enforcing
patent 123 against Entity Y with Entity Y failing to prove the patent invalid
doesn't prevent me from offering my own proof of patent validity against patent
123. It could even be the exact same evidence and the Jury overseeing my case
decides the patent is invalid!
Poke a stick in it - it's done!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 22 2013 @ 12:01 PM EST |
The possible remedies are:
1. Reject ALL software patents
issued in the past - not
going to happen
2. Fully review ALL asserted
patents before trial, without
restricting on the
number of patents that can be
asserted - not going to happen
3. Deny injunctive relief absent causal
nexus - the only
reasonable way out,
considering the abysmal quality and
astounding numerosity of
already issued
patents
Left software
patents be but correctly enforce the Supreme
Court rulings in the lower courts
with burden on the
plaintiff such as providing all the money upfront.
The
basis of the
Prometheus patent was very much an
algorithm - monitor condition
and do something when
conditions
change. Probably many software patents are
either a single algorithm or combination of probably
independent algorithms
these software patents would
disappear if the lower courts correctly applied
the Mayo
decision as applied to software. Therefore recognize the
components
that are actual
algorithms as a claim could correspond to a single step in
the
algorithm. Then determine which algorithms are actually
infringed. If
all are
infringing then it is whether or not the algorithms
as a whole are better than
the sum of parts. If all
algorithms are infringed, which is unlikely
for independent
implementation of an idea, then there is possible
infringement. Otherwise, remove all parts from each
algorithm that are pure
mathematical constructs, laws of
nature and other unpatentable material. Then
enforce the exact specificity of the patent claim. Here
claims would be
removed if it is impossible to do such as
the indefinite claims in Allen (if
not overturned) or
recipe-like claims that have exact specifications.
If
someone wants to have a software or genetic patent
after those steps, then
who
I am to deny their right to waste their money? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|