Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Parent in HTML. | 219 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Parent in HTML.

Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, December 04 2012 @ 12:03 AM EST

IF 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 novel, 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.

---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United States of America.

[ 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 )