|
|
|
| Authored by: BJ on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 12:10 AM EDT |
Expansion of earlier definitions to apply to later technologies
which
should be
improvement patents for a new use of an existing technology
should not be
allowed.
Paradoxically I have the feeling that
this would
actually hinder innovation. Think it through.
Where is MY
problem??!
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dio gratia on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 02:29 AM EDT |
I have begun wondering whether a large part of the problem is
the legal practice
of patent law where everyone agrees that the patent bar seek
to enlarge the
scope of a patent.
A larger part of the problem
seems to be the expansion of patent subject matter to include abstracts through
semiosis.
Take Apple's rubber banding patent for instance, where the product
of the process or what the machine produces is the display on a screen. A case
of merger between the transformation of signs (abstracts) and the thing the
signs represent.
Enlarging claim scope is claim by claim. Enlarging patent
subject matter is all pervasive.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 12 2013 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
If a patent includes an ambiguous term (I prefer broad), it is because the
inventor and patent drafter understood that a broad array of devices or
techniques could be used. Therefore, to prevent someone from saying the patent
doesn't cover X because the application didn't talk about X specifically, the
patent drafter is forced to use broad language to encompass X. Its unfortunate,
but a long history of courts playing "gotcha" with inventors because
the drafter used the word micro-controller instead of computer or computational
element and ruling that the same device implemented with a micro-processor and
not a micro-controller does not infringe a patent has lead to the use of broad
terminology.
I respectfully submit, that if you have an example of an patent with an
"ambiguous term". The ambiguity is in the eye of the beholder. You
are irritated by the term because it can be interpreted to cover what you hoped
would be a work around. But it was chosen specifically because the inventor was
aware of the option and felt entitled to cover that approach.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
