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
I asked for evidence | 172 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Lesser of two evils - require a working model
Authored by: alanjshea on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 03:04 PM EDT
I think that the "working model" requirement would be valid: If the
patent is strong enough and the innovation innovative enough, then you should be
able to find some investors willing to help you build a working model to issue a
patent and participate in the benefits thereof.

Sort of the inverse of the current system, where investors put money into
benefiting from the issued patent, not into getting the patent to issue.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I asked for evidence
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 03:05 PM EDT

And you provided me a reasonable situation that could lead to said small inventor. But does not actually prove the situation occurred.

A reasonable situation is not equal to evidence.

For the actual evidence I expect:

    A background on the inventor sufficient to prove the individual invented the item in their own lab - whether garage, backyard, etc. This could include such things as an interview with the individual.
Why is that point necessary? Because if said "small inventor" was actually an employee using the lab equipment of the company - obviously it doesn't fit the situation described.
    At the very least, the patent number!
This is so someone else can review the patent for their own opinion on whether the patent is reasonably valid. We have been shown quite conclusively by the USPTO that they grant a significant portion of patents that turn out to be invalid. As a result, we certainly cannot rely on the validity of the patent as determined by the USPTO.

RAS

[ 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 )