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
Useful | 172 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Useful
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 03:04 AM EDT
I agree with you, except that something a little less that marketing a prototype
might be advisable, otherwise the inventor gives the game away. Perhaps a
legally binding NDA with one meeting the court's requirements for 'skilled in
the art' (an expert witness) could be an alternative.

Anyway, you reminded me of a thought that I had some time ago. The invention has
to be useful. That means useful on the day of the submission of the patent and
not some years later when Broadcom have made the chip or Samsung have invented
the display.

There ought to be a new defence that a patented invention that was not useful on
the day of issue remains invalid throughout the life of the patent, even if the
technology appears that makes it useful during that time.

Of one of the patents in a smartphone case, the judge said that entering
previously typed values from a history into the field of a form was particularly
useful for a smartphone with a software keyboard. The issue date of the patent
(1995, IIRC) was about a decade before the smartphone appeared on the market.
The patent was not sufficiently useful to warrant a patent before smartphones
appeared.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Useful - Authored by: tknarr on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 02:30 PM EDT
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 )