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
I didn't say the proof would be easy | 158 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I didn't say the proof would be easy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT

Entity X is working on a particular problem. No one else is working on that problem. Patent applied, patent granted. No one reads the patent. Entity Y starts working on the problem, they develop a solution. The solution matches the patent.

In some cases, it wouldn't be easy at all to prove independent development.

But it would give a defense that currently is not allowed at all.

There should be room for something as seemingly logical as:

    A: the moment a patent is granted, it becomes published
    B: if a dozen different companies suddenly infringe the patent - "independent invention" should be blindingly obvious including identifying the patent for immediate rejection due to obviousness.
There's no way dozen's of companies will all get access to the same unpublished patent and develop their own products months prior to the actual grant.... not unless said inventor of said unpublished patent publicly disclosed the invention to the public first before applying.

And when you throw in companies accross diverse industries all infringing the same patent? Seriously? That Bank, the construction company, the theater chain, the fast food chain - they all suddenly infringe the same patent? Well... all I can say is:

    If that's not an obvious "invention" then "obvious" is not in the dictionary!
It's simply a non-sensical word that can be blindly ignored.

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 )