|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 05:09 AM EDT |
Functions are not patentable inventions. The inventors supported by the
Constitution are not inventors of functions.
One can invent a new character for a Harry Potter book. That is not the work of
an inventor. The USPTO has awarded patent protection for just such inventions.
The Supreme Court has provided a framework for excluding non-inventor inventions
by judicially excluding abstract ideas, math and laws of nature.
Functions can only be aspirations for an inventor's invention. They are abstract
ideas and judicially excluded. They are also excluded by ยง101 because they are
not 'new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
any new and useful improvement thereof'.
Functions alone cannot improve any of the four classes of patentable subject
matter. They can only be aspirations for the material improvement of patentable
subject matter.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bilateralrope on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 05:24 AM EDT |
>Any regulation that will stop "non-practising entities" as such
will also hit independent inventors, and those are the ones that the patent
system is actually designed for.
Do independent inventors still exist ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 06:49 AM EDT |
While working prototypes can't be
required from small
innovators without manufacturing
capabilities, the minimum standard are
workable blueprints
or schematics.
I respectfully
disagree. I believe a working prototype should
be an absolute requirement.
According to 35 USC §
101, an invention must be useful to be
patent-
eligible, and if the claimed invention does not even work,
how can it
be useful? And how can the inventor claim that
the invention works if they are
not able to produce a
working prototype (in other words, if they are unable
themselves to make it work)?
I agree that there might be costs in
bringing an
invention up to a working prototype stage, but I submit that
the
lack of such costs are one encouraging factor in the
proliferation of software
patents, since developing them
costs nothing (outside of the man-hours
developing the
"invention", which man-hours would ordinarily be involved
in
developing any invention, software or otherwise).
As a side point, if
submission of a working prototype were a
requirement, it might go a long, long
way toward
eliminating some of the junk patents for reasons of
obviousness.
("You mean you're trying to patent
that?? Denied!
Next?")
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac
Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 06:55 AM EDT |
"Again, the decisive metric has to be: will a patent search in my field of
work help me to get to a working product faster and cheaper? If the answer is
"no", the system is not working according to its intention."
Never has: all it does is make you pay triple damages.
All engineers are instructed to *never* *ever* look at patents, for exactly that
reason.
No-one has ever gone looking through a patent database for implementations.
I think you may be missing the actual intention of the patent system, similarly
to how a lot of people were fooled by the stated intention of "Operation
Iraqi Liberation", and missed what it was really about (which is right
there in the acronym)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: albert on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
I wouldn't characterize MPAA & RIAA as "shell companies". Their
membership is public and well known. They are 'enforcers' for those content
industries. Their purpose is to stamp out content copying by suing infringers.
Industrial-scale copying usually occurs outside the US, out of their reach.
It's true that such lawsuits can have draconian outcomes, but copyright
violations are usually clear cut cases, whereas patent lawsuits usually involve
bogus patents.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 08 2013 @ 04:02 AM EDT |
What is today's main incentive to do a patent search?
Minimizing damage.
Actually, it seems that generally the best way
to "Minimise damage" is to not do a patent search; if you are found to be
infringing after a patent search, it is considered to be wilful infringement and
incur triple damages.
cm [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 08 2013 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
Costs are not what the patent system was built for and shouldn't be any form
of test when applied to patents.
Limited grant of monopoly in exchange for
disseminating the knowledge to Society!
That is what the patent system is
supposed to be for. If you doubt, then let's examine the actual wording of Patent Law itself. Chapter 10,
101 - Inventions Patentable:
Whoever invents or discovers any new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
The non-bolded part
is half the exchange - what you may receive a patent on. The bolded part is the
other half of the exchange - what allows you to get a patent. That part
contains section 112, Specification:
(a) IN GENERAL -- The
specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the
manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and
exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains,
or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall
set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of
carrying out the invention
The bolding is clearly outlining the
dissemination of knowledge. Ironically - it's supposed to be made crystal clear
what the claimed invention is - yet with the broad wording claims are being
levied against the metaphorical "screw in the invention". What I mean by that
is "anything the claims cover, individually or in combination" seems to be fair
game for lawsuits.
(b) CONCLUSION -- The specification shall
conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as
the invention.
As a result, I'd suggest an additional test be to
examine what is being disseminated to the public knowledge vs if something is
being removed from the public knowledge.
If nothing is being added by the
claim and/or combination of claims: patent denied.
If something is
being removed by the claim and/or combination of claims - patent on that
denied.
I've provided citations from Patent Law itself supporting my
perspective of what Patent Law is supposed to be.
Perhaps you can point
to where Patent Law speaks to costs being recovered.... or perhaps speaks to
cost at all.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 10 2013 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
What I mean by that is:
In exchange for disclosing the knowledge to
Society, you are granted a limited monopoly on the invention
There is no
guarantee in there that you will profit. Your patented invention could be
absolutely and no one may be able to "monetize" it. In such a situation, all
the money and time you invested in any particular research and development into
your invention would be totally lost.
That's the important part:
The
Government makes no guarantee whether you profit or not!
So any
discussion on recovering costs is incredibly misleading because it redirects
from what should be the true discussion related to a patent grant:
What is
required to get a patent!
And that includes:
Full and proper
disclosure!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|