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
Agreed | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Agreed
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 08:57 PM EDT

An excellent example of one way the patent system fails!

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Secret Sauce in a patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 11:34 PM EDT
I seem to recall that the UK university that patented Carbon fibre patented both
the method and chemicals in one patent. Others very quickly found other
chemicals that did the same thing using the original method.

Because the method, of drawing fibres, was described as using specific chemicals
they were not infringing the patent. Had it been done as two patents, one
describing drawing the fibres and a second one what chemicals to use, copying
the process would have been infringing.

We all know just how quickly carbon fibre became in common use. Would it have
been so if the patents had been filed separately?

In this case it would seem that the use of catalyst is the equivalent of drawing
the fibre. The chemicals have not been disclosed but remain "trade
secret"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You are ranting as if this were a patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 09:49 AM EDT
The document you discuss is, as you mention at least twice, an application, not
a granted patent.

You should wait until it becomes a patent (if it ever does) before you hold it
out as an example of absurdity.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

meh
Authored by: scav on Saturday, July 21 2012 @ 08:57 AM EDT
That should be a fairly harmless patent even with unresolved
ambiguities in the application, since the process as
described cannot possibly work anyway.

---
The emperor, undaunted by overwhelming evidence that he had no clothes,
redoubled his siege of Antarctica to extort tribute from the penguins.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • meh - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 08:47 AM EDT
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 )