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
look out on that bridge...... | 293 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
extreme penalties
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 09:22 AM EDT
A company should not suffer for losing honest, good-faith lawsuits that they
initiate. However, they should be penalized for frivolously pursuing
'ownership' (patents) despite well-published prior art as well as for initiating
lawsuits when those skilled in the art would reasonably recognize the patent as
bogus. The US government may have granted the patent, but, as part of the
bargain, the 'inventors' have a duty to file for patents on inventions that
they, as people that are 'skilled in the art' are new, useful, and not
anticipated by existing, public prior art. In this responsibility, many
companies have been negligent. The examiner has a duty to do his/her work to
test for utility and novelty, but that does not excuse the company. It's time
to start prosecuting companies for filing patents on ideas/items that inventors
would reasonably have anticipated as obvious or previously commercialized or
published. No inventor is perfect, just as no driver is perfect. However, we
can still end up in trouble for being negligent or irresponsible.

If we are going to have a patent system (and I still think <KNOW> that
software should be off that table), then companies should be able to defend a
valid patent. However, if a litigating company has failed in its diligence to
only litigate over a reasonably valid patent, whether that be to file for a
patent or file over a patent, then said company should be open to punishment,
with those punishments being proportioned to market or defendant potential
impact.

mcinsand
(too lazy to log in)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

look out on that bridge......
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 12:17 PM EDT


Just because a government said it, don't make it so.
(in fact you could probably take the contrary to the bank)

Just because the PTO issued a patent, don't make it so.

If a Jury says it is so, then it is so.

Provided that the Jury correctly followed it's instructions, otherwise all bets
are off.

Apples patents are starting to look much thinner than the emperors new clothes.

[ 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 )