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
Let's get rid of all patents, instead | 381 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Let's get rid of all patents, instead
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:43 AM EDT

Let's not limit that to just software, shall we?
Seriously. This brain damage is not limited to software.

Swinging on a swing isn't software.
Gene patents on breast cancer genes hurt research, and those aren't software.
Patents on medicines against AIDS hurt basically everyone, and those aren't
software.
Thomas Watts nineteenth century patents on the steam engine, for crying out
loud, already showed quite convincingly that patents hurt innovation.

This "patents promote innovation" claptrap has been going on since the
dawn of the patent system. It's just not true. Patently, provably, undeniably
false.

Just end patents.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall
Authored by: hAckz0r on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 11:32 AM EDT
Of course they granted the patents. Congress earns extra money in any patent fees collected by the USPTO, on demand. The more patents that are granted by the USPTO the more Congress gets as its cut of the action at the end of the FY. Need I say more?

For many years, Congress has "diverted" about 10% of the fees that the USPTO collected into the general treasury of the United States. In effect, this took money collected from the patent system to use for the general budget.

Now tell me again why Congress would ever object to the way the USPTO rubber stamps invalid patents? The Judicial branch is of course paid through the general budget is it not? So apparently things have got to be pretty bad for them to act too. So I ask you, what it wrong with this picture?

---
The Investors IP Law: The future health of a Corporation is measured as the inverse of the number of IP lawsuits they are currently litigating.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Thank you, hAckz0r!
Authored by: albert on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 03:59 PM EDT
This is what I've been saying all along, it's all about the money. Bogo-patents
make even more money because of the very high 're-examine' fees.

It's win/win-more for the USPTO. There's NO downside for them!

Think about it.

Now what if they had to refund all fees for any invalidated patent? It's a
simple administrative rule change, which might be accomplished without an act of
InCongruous.

Eliminating offshore tax havens would bring in vastly more income than the USPTO
chump change.

It's a question of how much the gov't can squeeze the Big Boys before they
squeeze back.

[ 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 )