|
Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, August 16 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
The author calling this as working against intellectual property is sooooo
wrong. This might be against weak patents or, more accurately, frivolous IP
application prosecution, but it can only strengthen well-founded patents.
At a previous employer, our attorney was a very good screen for weak
applications. She researched and knew the prior art, and she refused to file
anything with claims that were difficult to test or, especially, vague wording
in the specification or examples. Whether you like patents or not, if you are
honest, then you will oppose vague wording or unclear boundaries in the claims.
As someone involved in research, as someone that files for patents, I like this
new utility from Google. I like it a lot!
Regards,
mc[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, August 16 2012 @ 02:56 PM EDT |
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57494755-37/judge-says-apples-smoking-crack-wi
th-giant-witness-list/
Well, didn't Linus Torvalds say that about SCO? Hmmm... Maybe Koh reads Groklaw
after all!
Hi!
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 16 2012 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
Snapping a leaf from a tree is a physical separation, easily done by
anyone. Creating a new chemical entity is the work of human
transformation,
requiring skill, knowledge, and effort.
patentlyO .
Right, but, the isolated gene in question is not a new
chemical entity.
The principal claims of the patents before us on
remand relate to isolated DNA molecules. Mayo does not control the question of
patent-eligibility of such claims. Setting aside the question of
how Mayo reads on this question, the gene in question was isolated
in a manner
analogous to snapping off a leaf. Maybe the defense didn't call a witness with
experience in lecturing to sophomores, who could have
got that message through
these judicial minds. The gene in question has existed for millions of years.
Any mutation to a cancerous form was not
influenced by any process of the
patent applicant. The machine, method or process to isolate the gene may be
patentable. The gene is not.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|