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
The Patent Exchange | 172 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The Patent Exchange
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 01:38 PM EDT

I'm certainly not making up the underlying understanding that the patent exchange is supposed to be - and was originally meant to be:

    Dissemination of the knowledge of the invention to the public in exchange for a limited monopoly grant on the invention!
This is inherent in the patent requirement that full disclosure so that someone versed in the art can build the invention is a requirement to receive a patent. 35 USC 101 - Inventions patentable:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 USC 112 - Specification:
(a) In General. The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Bolding mine.

I know I recently (in the last couple years) read one of the Supreme Court's rulings on Patents with regards the benefit/harm to Society. So I'll need to research that to support my position that the balance of harm to Society in granting the patent should (and seems to, based on my understanding of the Supreme's ruling) outweigh any claim of harm to the individual inventor.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You keep making stuff up and inappropriately extrapolating.
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 01:58 PM EDT
Hahahaha

Like the Wright Brothers? Hahahahaha. They
strangled progress for so long, the US air
industry was hobbled and Europe got ahead of
the US. The government finally had to step
in the fix the bottleneck. So you are
arguing from ideology, not real-life effects.

Let me guess. You own some patents or work
for someone who does?

[ 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 )