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
So much effort and so ill used. | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Reading comprehension fail. N/T
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 09:43 AM EDT
bkd

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

So much effort and so ill used.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 09:57 AM EDT
We don't need a better mousetrap we need a better class if mice.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Not to worry... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 11:47 AM EDT
  • But then... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 01:31 PM EDT
What is the difference between the actual mouse traps?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 11:04 AM EDT

Sure you list patents but all seem to involve springs as I am not reading those patents beyond what you provided. So are these really unique? How different are the mouse traps compared to any other system especially animals (rat ones are often larger mouse traps)?

The point is that these patents have very little difference between them yet there is an enormous resource cost to differentiate any differences. Then you infringe because poor jury had no way of knowing it was an obvious concept. Whereas, that idea was well known to a person skilled in the art due to common training.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The problems start when your mousetrap business starts earning money
Authored by: ailuromancy on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 11:15 AM EDT

OK, so you have researched mouse behaviour, tested various prototypes. You have paid for the expensive tooling required to mass produce your trap, set up a distribution channel and advertised your product. You have done all this without reading a single patent because patents are too cryptic for mouse trappers to understand, and even if you get one translated, the 'inventive' part of the patent is obvious, and the description of how to manufacture is vague and incomplete. On top of that, there are 100,000 existing mousetrap patents, and 1000 more granted each month. There is no way you can find anything useful in that huge pile of obfuscated tripe.

On the advice of a patent lawyer, you threw an extra $10,000 per month on patents from the start. Because the president's executive order diverting all education funds to patent examiners, you have you patents granted and ready for 'protection'.

At last, the money is coming in faster than the interest on the loan you took out to research, manufacture and distribute mouse traps. Then in come the demands for royalties. The first bunch are for for patents that are obvious, have prior art, claim non-patentable subject matter, you do not infringe, or the patents cover components that you buy from licensed manufacturers. You sell your children to pay the legal costs of invalidating all these patents and by an amazing stroke of luck, you actually win. The shell company that sued you evaporates so you cannot get any litigation costs back.

Then the next bunch of royalty demands come in, but you are out of children to sell. You agree to give the trolls all your profits, but you can continue to pay the interest on your loan. Everything is now sorted. You work all full time for the trolls and will die in debt - but the world now has better mouse traps.

Next month another bunch of trolls turns up with more patents. You go to your lawyer and remind him that you paid many thousands of dollars for 'protection'. He says, 'Yes, thank you for all that money. Have a nice day'. As you are utterly desperate, you decide to start trolling yourself. Your lawyer says you need $500,000 to sue your first victim, and you do not have the money. Your mousetrap business is driven into bankruptcy and all you suppliers get burned. Your patents are sold for a pittance to the trolls ready for the next fool daft enough to make a better mousetrap.

Inventors hate and despise the entire patent system. The popular methods of dealing with the problem involve fire, drowning, and recently I have seen solutions with explosives. I consider my personal solution mild and generous - fine all the trolls for extortion.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The problem is the broadest patent trumps the rest.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 11:31 AM EDT
So while all these patentees are paying lots of money to the
USPTO, they are wasting their time and effort because the
person who has managed to patent the broadest concept of
catching mice can block use or sue all the rest.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Conflation: broad vs specific
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 11:50 AM EDT

P.J. used as an example of a broad - and thereby shouldn't be patented - invention of:

trapping mice
Let's call this patent MP1.

You have completely ignored the broadness of the abstract concept of "trapping mice" and used examples of specifically defined inventions in order to attempt to dispute it.

Your first example:

The improved mousetrap comprises two hooks in place of the standard trigger for engaging a Cheerio.
Replacement of a hook (specific physical design) for the standard trigger (that little platform thingy).

Your second example:

This product is designed to provide a disposable spring-loaded mouse trap with a safety arm to prevent accidental discharge of the bow of a spring-loaded mouse trap.
Again, the specific physical is mentioned. Your third example:
A controller for a pest trap that includes a sensor, signaler, power source and activator in a housing to be attached to and detached from a pest trap.
Again, specific physical mentioned. Your fourth example:
The mouse-receiving space (3) of the trap is formed from a foldable sheet consisting of cardboard or some other appropriate material with a moving device
Again, the physical specific is mentioned. Some of your examples appear to be duplicates of others such as patents WO2006036767A3 and WO2006036767A2. For the purposes of the abstract vs specific this doesn't hold any bearing other then they both mention the specific physical. I wouldn't be surprised if A3 is a great example of a patent that should not have been granted due to obviousness. The alternative is that A3 is a refinement of A2 and only 1 patent was ever granted covering the final version.

So... All your examples mention the specific physical. Since they are all fully, 100% read on patent MP1, I am curious.

Your challenge:

    Please explain why you think your example patents could have ever been granted if MP1 - the broad, abstract concept of "trapping mice" - would have been granted!

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 )