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
You keep making stuff up and inappropriately extrapolating. | 172 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
working models and the Novel and Unanticipated/Non-obvious requirement
Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 12:52 PM EDT
Given the requirement for an idea to be unanticipated and nonobvious, maybe the
working model is not so bad of a requirement, anyway. Actually, the way I have
had the concept stated as patent attorneys is novel and surprising. The more I
think about it, the more I like the latter, and the more I like the idea of
getting back to the working model requirement. If you can virtually reduce an
idea to practice inside of your head without making a model, then the idea fails
the 'surprising' test.

Regards,
mc

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You keep making stuff up and inappropriately extrapolating.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 01:07 PM EDT
"Promote the progress of Science and the useful arts"

Does not mean that "society" benefits from each individual patent.

Progress in science and the useful arts is promoted because of the benefits of
getting a patent and the pain of being late to the party (not getting a patent
and/or being beaten to the party by someone that got a patent). This encourages
inventors to move rapidly.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Lesser of two evils - require a working model
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 25 2013 @ 02:20 PM EDT
"Perhaps you can identify a single small inventor who was able to actually
come up with a valid invention that he couldn't afford to build so was
appropriately granted a patent?"

That would be the description of most valid patents ever asserted by a terrible
Patent Enforcement Entity. They get those patents by purchasing them from small
inventors and/or collapsing startups and the like, thereby giving the inventors
at least something for their efforts, usually after they were ignored by the
companies the PAE eventually go after.

[ 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 )