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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Thoroughness versus brevity... | 81 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Thoroughness versus brevity...
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Monday, January 07 2013 @ 10:41 AM EST
"a severe penalty has to be levied on a patent found to be
invalid on re-examination"

the problem with that though is that it is so hard to find
out whether or not your patent is invalidated by a prior
patent because the language is so vague you don't know what
to look for. So it's possible someone can actually make a
mistake.

IMO, the appropriate action would be to charge companies a
lot more money for patent applications. This will reduce
troll-like behavior (companies who apply for a hundred
thousand patents hoping a few will land them in a $1b court
case - like throwing a fistful of darts at a dartboard and
hoping one hits the bulls-eye). Then again that would hurt
the little guy that really does want to protect his one
really good idea.

I got an idea, why not just make all software patents
invalid. why has no one ever thought of that before?

---
IANAL

[ 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 )