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
this is a known problem | 134 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
this is a known problem
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 | # ]

"If you are ever on a jury, please don't make such an assumption. "
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 | # ]

"If you are ever on a jury, please don't make such an assumption. "
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 | # ]

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 )