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
Illustrating the problem | 307 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Jury of *peers*
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT
Except they're not peers.

If they were, they would have a decent grasp of what the patents were about.
That's what the word (in the Magna Carta sense) *MEANS*!

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Jury of *peers* - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 04:30 PM EDT
Illustrating the problem
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 03:46 PM EDT
written by lawyers who are not expert in the art, rubber stamped by
patent officials who are not expert in the art and do not have time to
check for prior art, and judged for "obviousness to someone expert in
the art" by judges and juries who are not expert in the art.

No wonder the patent system is a complete mess.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Yes
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 10:03 AM EDT
... and part of the problem is that patents, by law, are supposed to DESCRIBE
the invention so that it can be reproduced. I have rarely seen patents that
actually do that. Patent holders want the patent, but they also want to keep
trade secrets, so they write obfuscated patents. Obfuscation also helps slide
prior art past the examiner as well. In technical fields, technically weak
people use flowery language to hide their ignorance as well.

So, in a sane world the rule ought would be: if any part of a patent does not
make sense in plain language, then it is presumed invalid.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 02:35 PM 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 )