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
What a double standard! | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
And that would be part of the problem
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 08:53 PM EDT

I was simply speaking to the underlying exchange:

    A Monopoly
for
    The knowledge of the invention
If I were to list the biggest problem I see with the existing system it would be (realized this recently):
    Patent Lawyers always get paid, therefore always have financial incentive to file and argue a patent - yet they conversely have zero risk, no disincentive, nothing to limit them!
With no bar in place, there is no behavior limit. They are absolutely free to argue:
    E=MC2
really is:
    A method for determining the energy equivalent of a mass comprising:

    determining the mass;and
    multiplying the mass by the square of the speed of light, thereby determining
    the energy equivilent.
Even knowing the Supreme's explicitly stated E=MC2 is not patentable subject matter.

Place a limit of some kind on what Patent Lawyers can do - and I think we'll start to see some of these word games decrease. But that really depends on how well such a limit can be measured, how high that bar is, and how much it would cost a Lawyer - personally - every time s/he crosses that bar.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What a double standard!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 08:23 AM EDT
Funny how the courts think a programmer "skilled in the art" is
extremely
capable when it comes to being able to reimplement extremely fuzzy
function "disclosed" by a software patent.

And yet the Patent Office does not apply the same high expectations of
their capability to reject the patenting of ideas and algorithms which
should be OBVIOUS to software practitioners skilled in the art.

The system is completely broken, and should be scrapped!

[ 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 )