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
Agree, but ... | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Agree, but ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 07:32 AM EST
Not the OP. I must agree with you. This could seemingly
put the patent business back where it belongs. But, I remain
a skeptic when it comes to lawyers and organizations who can
afford to pay their outragous litigation fees on a continuing
basis. Stand by for weasel words.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

ref: 'Perpetual Motion Machines'
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 07:52 AM EST
As i understood, the 'Perpetual Motion Machines' where the
one-and-only exception where the USPTO *does* require a
'working model' before granting a patent on the machine.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

In CANADA that is .... (n.t.)
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 11:43 AM EST
.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You are missing the point
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 12:03 PM EST
No Problem!
Submit your perpetual motion machine device example to the patent office and
Presto! You have got yourself a patent on your non-working perpetual motion
machine. not that anyone would want it, however you don't have a patent on
different non-working perpetual motion machines or working perpetual motion
machine (ha). We need to patent things not words on a piece of paper.The proper
paper should say here it is with an arrow pointing to the actual device.

[ 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 )