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
Restore "process" in retrospect | 478 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Patentability 101
Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 06:35 AM EDT

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 phrasing of this law intrigues me. One way to read the phrase "may obtain a patent" is to infer that one would "obtain a patent from the U.S. government". But another way to read it would be as the plain language seems to imply, that patents may only be obtained by those who "invent[] or discover[]" the subject matter.

If the second reading were strictly applied, one might consider that a patent could only be "obtained" by the original inventor or discoverer, and that they were the only ones that legitimately could hold a patent. If one were to construe the term "obtain" to mean "purchase" or "acquire from the original issuee", then this would seem to be an implicit ban on selling a patent to another.

I'd love to see a decision on this point, banning the sale of patents back and forth. IHMO that might stop a lot of patent trolling.

(Well, I can dream, can't I?)

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Purpose Patents
Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 01:00 PM EDT
Again, each of these patents has the "for the purpose of" problem. The
normal action (illicit customer feedback) is patented as unique because it's
"for the purpose of" providing a "new" means of improving
(unspecified) product(s).

It doesn't patent the process (getting feedback) it patents the intended purpose
for the data collected.

This is the flaw of all software patents. They list a bunch of well defined
technologies (in the least well defined wording possible) and then tack on a
purpose statement. (It's not "a database" it's "a database set up
to collect customer feedback" etc.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Restore "process" in retrospect
Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT
Applying the word "process" to math and thinking is a new thing
compared to the constitution etc.

We need to fix that word by adding the phrase "chemical or mechanical"
in front of it.

All of those words around "process" are nouns. But with the advent of
"data processing" we "verbed that noun". Now we are
patenting anything we can apply the verb onto. This is not correct.

Note that most of the verbs in modern English started life as nouns. You can
"machine a part" "tree a coon" "post a bill"
"staple a page" etc.

The problem is that the law didn't respond correctly when the common use of the
word "process" made the leap from noun to verb. So now we have patents
that patent the act of changing data in general instead of the particular steps
of changing a real thing into another real thing.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Old law.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT

It looks like you're quoting from the MPEP, at least the "useful, tangible, or concrete" stuff. I'm not sure you're aware, but those guidelines are pre- Bilski. To get the current guidelines google "memoranda to the examiners corps" and search for 101 or mayo.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple Patents the "Wedge" Design - Mac Air
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 04:02 PM EDT
Apple Patents the Wedge

[ 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 )