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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Perhaps.... | 200 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Perhaps....
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 07:11 PM EDT
Having to supply a model would put a limit on software patents too.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Perhaps....
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 11:13 PM EDT
Well, if the licensee was to take an exclusive license, ie equivalent to the
sale, then the price could be just as high. Tying rights to actual use of the
patent would help reduce trolling and if the patent holder is derelict in his
duty then why not give him a kick, he wanted the protection of the patent badly
enough to take one out.

As for limitations I only see it as implementing the original purpose of the
patent which was to protect the inventor and not create a trading market.

Yes, the patent office needs much better standards. On suggestion I have made
before is that the fees are linked to quality. For example, a refund of part of
the fee is given if the patent is accepted but kept if it is reject turning 'how
can we get money by allowing patents' into 'how can we make money by rejecting
them'. Also, if a patent is re-examined and thrown out then the patent office
should be charged. That would need to be done through a 3rd party for obvious
reasons.

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Perhaps....
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 12:50 AM EDT
That would just be one step. Another step is for the USPTO to hire "practiced individuals in the art" and see if they can build the "invention". If it can't be built, then the inventor must supply a working model. If the inventor can't supply such a working model, the invention is denied.
Why not BOTH? ie the Inventor/patent holder has to supply on application a working model of the patent, and on demand at any time [the same], and hire those practised in the art to so do from the patent.

The inventor/holder supplied model would be the definitive description - any other creation which does not [almost] exactly match this would be deemed to be non-infringing.

if the hired practitioner creates something different then the patent can't be clearly describing the invention and/or its method of creation and the patent would be denied [with prejudice - one can but dream...back to reality...]

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Perhaps....
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 03:56 PM EDT
The patent applicant should ALWAYS have access to a working model. If he
doesn't, then he hasn't "reduced the invention to practice" and
shouldn't be able to get a patent!

The issuance of a patent should be dependent on the existence of a working
demonstration of the patent. If the applicant is unable to demonstrate the
invention in action, then the patent does not issue. END OF.

(NB - "model" here simply means "a working version". It
could be the actual product.)

Cheers,
Wol

[ 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 )