Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 08 2012 @ 02:33 PM EST |
You know it, we know it now, the judges and lawyers knew it all along.
The evidence suggests jurors in general don't know it. So how come
it's not a "sticky" at the top of jury instructions?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Sunday, December 09 2012 @ 10:12 AM EST |
Here's something interesting and germane. Mark Lemley
has written a paper I also put in News Picks on
functional claiming. Here's
one paragraph:
It is not just the scope and definition of software
patents is uncertain. Patents are probabilistic rights – what Carl Shapiro calls
rights to try to exclude. Many asserted software patents are invalid. Empirical
evidence suggests that nearly half of all asserted patents are invalid; there is
some reason to believe software patents may be more likely than most to be
invalid. That means that even if a product‐producing company could
actually identify all of the thousands of patents that might ultimately be held
to read on that product, they would be wasting their money in many cases if they
tried to pay a license fee for each of those patents. Nearly half
of all asserted patents are not valid. So much for assuming that an
issued
patent is necessarily valid.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 09 2012 @ 10:12 PM EST |
If the PTO is understaffed and can't thoroughly vet submissions, they
shouldn't be granting patent rights with a "let the courts decide".
But
is understaffed really the problem?
It doesn't look as if it would take much
time to show that many of the software patents submitted lack novelty,
are functional, or prior art exists.
Maybe the PTO operates from a basic
premise that anything submitted must be valid and the bar is set very
high to prove otherwise. If that's the case, the PTO simply isn't doing it's
job.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|