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
Are you seriously suggesting | 364 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oh please...
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 05:11 AM EST
1. Case law isn't consistent. So the USPTO could
choose an appropriate standard and force the issue
into the courts that way. It has happened before.

2. Why would they ask for help figuring out how
to fix the software patent problem if it had no
muscle to implement?

3. You are a bit too rude for Groklaw. We have
standards that you are not meeting. Improve or
I'll just remove your comments or block you.
Fair warning. Did you seriously think you could
come to my home on the Internet, so to speak,
and insult me at will? If you came to my home
and did that, I'd ask you to leave also.

So shape up. Because I am serious.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Oh please... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 09:07 PM EST
    • Oh please... - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 11:39 PM EST
ROFL: get mad at the Supreme Court and Congress?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:01 AM EST

Now that's funny, really and truly funny.

Because my problems aren't with either the Supreme Court or Congress.

Congress does not necessarily agree with the Supreme Court, but so long as Congress doesn't pass a Law making Abstract Concepts patentable subject matter - they effectively agree with the Supremes.

The Supremes have made quite clear Abstract Concepts are not patentable subject matter. See Mayo vs Prometheus.

The fact that - according to Mr. Quinn - the Federal Circuit keeps trying to "overrule the Supremes" is where my personal fundamental problem with regards patent enforcement comes into the picture.

However, patent enforcement is only one half of the equation. The other is the responsibility of the grant of the Patents via an entity that is supposed to be properly vetting the patents such that the Law is required to treat the patents as valid by default.

Whatever excuse you'd like to present to somehow excuse the USPTO from their role in this mess:

    Doesn't alter the fact the USPTO is responsible for vetting the patents!
In case you're unsure of what vetting means, here's a couple definitions:
    Make a careful and critical examination of (something).
    Investigate thoroughly, esp. in order to ensure suitability
The Supremes certainly didn't make the USPTO grant the Prometheus patent just so they could later reject it. Did Congress make the USPTO grant that patent?

How about the patent owned by IP Innovation that RedHat invalidated in a Federal Circuit Court in Texas by wheeling out a 1980's Amiga. Who made the USPTO grant that patent?

You seem to want all blame shifted from the USPTO, yet the only example you give lies squarely with the USPTO:

Patent Examiners receive two "actions" for allowing a patent, while receiving only one "action" for rejecting one - and examiners annual performance reviews are largely based on the total number of administrative actions they've taken in the year
Are you suggesting the Supremes and/or Congress is responsible for the USPTO performance review rules? Or the performance reviews themselves?

Or should that be laid squarely at the feet of the USPTO management?

If USPTO management is arranging their "corporate culture" in such a way that the examiners are sacrificing patent quality: then USPTO management - the generic "USPTO" is most certainly at fault for failing the proper vetting!

I agree with you that it's an administration problem - the administration at the USPTO!

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Are you seriously suggesting
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 04:21 PM EST
YES YES YES!

And that is precisely the problem!

Here in Europe we have the exact self-same problem with the EPO. The treaty
documents which give the EPO its legal existence specifically EXCLUDE certain
categories (such as software) from the list of patentable things. Yet the EPO
happily grants such patents in flagrant violation of its legal authority.

Cheers,
Wol

[ 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 )