|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 09:04 AM EDT |
| Don't you have that in East Texas <ducks> [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
I though the Federal Circuit was supposed to do that, but they've been captured
by the Patent Bar, and the Supremes keep rapping their knuckles.
We'd be far better off if the different Circuits kept jurisdiction over patent
appeals and let the Supremes sort out the differences.
Sort of the "many eyes" approach.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 11:21 AM EDT |
I don't see how that would help. What are the specially
trained Judges experts in? Patent law? Reading patents? Its
patent law and patents that are the problem in the first
place.
The only solution is to shift the burden of proof of patent
validity to the patent holder. That way the patent office
can just do their quick and flawed checks as they do now
(hence keeping costs down). If the patent holder wants to
enforce their rights in court they would first have to hold
a validity tribunal (at their own expense) for which they
would have to hire independent experts to properly evaluate
the patent. Competitors would be allowed to file briefs to
the tribunal pointing out relevant prior art. If a patent
passes the tribunal then patent invalidity would not be a
valid defence against infringement (hence the patent owner
only pays once to prove the validity instead of every time
they sue someone). This would decrease costs to industry and
provide more certainty to both the patent holder and their
competitors.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- A Sugestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 04:45 AM EDT
- A Sugestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 09 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
