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
That's a sword that cuts both ways | 277 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Do not get your hopes up
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT
> They decided long ago that any stupid, trivial idea is entitied to a
patent

They decided long ago that any stupid, trivial idea is entitied to pay the USPTO
a fee, and to keep paying fees. And anyone for a reassessment is also entitled
to pay a fee for it to be done.

These are not just 'patents', they are 'indulgences'.

It is the patent office that should pay if the court finds the patent invalid -
that will make a difference.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That's a sword that cuts both ways
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT

You state:

They just want to hear opposing arguments so they can fortify their future opinions against them.
But that works for anti-software as well. Every time someone wants to discuss software patents it also helps us improve our arguments so we're better equipped to elucidate why software should not be patented.

Make no mistake: we are having an impact.

That is quite clear from how venomously vocal patent attorney's like Gene Quinn have been with regards the rulings of the Supremes.

They also get quite vocal about our arguments. If they believed our arguments couldn't stand up to their own arguments - there'd be no need to get upset would there?

So while I don't get my hopes up with regards the Federal Circuit - all these arguments could very well make their way to the Supreme's where we stand a much better chance. I'm just thrilled at the fact that the Federal Circuit is simply asking the questions: something they haven't really done before.

Winds of change!

And maybe sooner or later we'll find a very simple argument that rings true with everyone.... and that will lead to Congress clearly outlining software as applied to a computer is not patentable subject matter.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Do not get your hopes up
Authored by: JonCB on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 10:00 PM EDT
I'm not hoping that we're going to get a blanket reversal on
software patents. What i'm hoping is that we remove, forever
more, all the "obvious routine, but on a computer" patents.
I'd also like to get confirmed that things that have been
done in academia (and the open source world) for the past 20
years are not novel.

I'd also like to see disappear the "we did this useless side
thing that won't work but your software can be construed to
do this tiny piece so we're entitled to a non-trivial piece
of your entire revenue" lawsuits. The doctrine of
equivalents scares me when patents can talk about vague
things that can be construed to mean anything.

One revolution that i've been thinking recently might
improve life is if any ambiguity of wording in an asserted
patent is always construed in favour of the defendent. On
what grounds i hear generations of patent lawyers scream?
Your own terminology implies that patents should be
"teaching" me something, and you can't teach me anything if
your words aren't specific and clear. Thus the penalty for
being vague is being easily defended.

(NB: I don't believe that thought is fully formed... but i
don't see that true innovation would have a problem with
being specific and clear about what their innovation is)

[ 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 )