|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 05:05 PM EST |
That's a great idea, get two patents on the same thing, double the
damages!</sarcasm>
---
I voted for Groklaw (Legal Technology Category) in the 2012 ABA Journal Blawg
100. Did you? http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100. Voting ends Dec 21.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 05:12 PM EST |
Agreed. If the USPTO would only follow their own regulations, the patent
system would probably work reasonably well. Since they won't, the only
option I can see is to shut it down.
Wayne
http://Madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mcinsand on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 08:38 AM EST |
<b>IF</b> we are going to continue to allow patents, software or
otherwise, we need to start going after inventors/companies that fail in their
responsibility. The theory behind the patent system is that inventors/assignees
get temporary monopolies on a <b>novel</b>, useful invention in
exchange for a full, exact description. Yes, I know that design patents are
different, but the novelty requirement is still there. Apple, MS, and other
companies have been burying the USPTO in baloney and getting away with it. In a
case like this, where something is double-patented, the USPTO did fail on its
own; the filing parties failed in their responsibilities. Even if proving
willful failure is not possible, this shows negligence, at the very least. Even
if negligence isn't criminal, fines need to be levied commensurate with market
impact and, if it is possible to show that the 'double-dipping' was intentional,
then the fraud should bring criminal charges.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|