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 you're advocating throwing out the entire aptent system? Good. | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The actions do not apply to inventors that actually patent inventions.
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 | # ]

Here is the metric I am missing:
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 | # ]

Here is the metric I am missing:
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 | # ]

So you're advocating throwing out the entire aptent system? Good.
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 | # ]

Re: MPAA & RIAA
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 | # ]

Here is the metric I am missing:
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 | # ]

Cost = Deliberate Confusion on what Patents are supposed to be
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 | # ]

Cost is peripheral to patents
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 | # ]

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 )