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
It is not a patent | 279 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
It is not a patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT

This is a patent application. It has not been issued as a patent. In fact, the PTO has already rejected the claims of this patent application.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That's a revolting remark!
Authored by: BJ on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT
-- but I'm afraid I'd have to agree with you.
After all, a corporation's primary concern is
the continuation of its existence.


bjd


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

the problem with trying to patent everything
Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 02:31 PM EDT
I have been involved in patent filings for over 2 decades, and the patent attorneys I have dealt with have been among the most ethical people I have known (one reason I can't help but wonder what planet gave us the software patent people). One thing that they have all told me consistently is that, as an inventor, I have a duty to only file if I, as a person skilled in the art, honestly believe that the invention I am filing is described in complete detail, described as my best known working example, and novel. I firmly believe that we need to start having criminal charges to reinforce these responsibilities. Although proving willful failure to uphold those duties would be difficult, if not impossible, it should be a crime with penalities tied to the impact that any resulting litigation has on the market. Irresponsible negligence would be easier to prove and, again, fines should be tied to the negative impact on the market with the company/inventor charged held responsible for legal fees incurred by any companies having to fight off infringement charges. If you doubt that this is easy to prove, I have two words for you: 'rounded' and corners.'

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

If its blindingly obvious...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 05:05 PM EDT
"Many of us will spend a good deal of time trying to proove that<insert
idea here> is so blindingly obvious as to warrant the patent being
rescinded."

Why would it take a good deal of time to prove it?

Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word: obvious?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Five days watching sea...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 04:18 AM EDT
Not making any comment on your choice of transport, I thought
p'raps you'd gone by Tardis and lost a century to a time when
a patent was granted for a useful invention...

[ 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 )