|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 07:05 PM EDT |
Broad is not supposed to be granted. Specific is.
It's a Legal act to
study an invention disclosed by a patent and then work around the patented parts
of that invention.
That is supposed to be how the system functions. Not
by granting a broad patent so no one can innovate around it.
As the
Supremes keep saying:
Abstract concepts are not patentable subject
matter!
And if you patent a broad idea - instead of a specific machine -
you are patenting the abstract.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 07:39 PM EDT |
But people are supposed to be able to work around your patent by the
simple method of finding another way to do the job. That's innovation,
that's how progress is made. You're asking to foreclose on progress by barring
anyone else from doing it any other way without your permission. And that's just
wrong. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- yes, doing "it" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 01:07 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 07:02 AM EDT |
I'm looking at a USPTO granted non-patent in my field, that is
defined so broadly, that it covers everything within my field that is
done "using a computer".
Using a spreadsheet to add up things is covered under that
patent.
Using a word processor to create client reports is covered under
that patent.
Using a digital monitor hooked up to a computer is covered
under that patent.
Do you seriously expect me to pay royalties for a non-invention
that is blatantly obvious to people who are _NOT_ skilled in the
art of my field?
Do you seriously expect me to work around a patent, by using a
typewriter, lithograph, and architectural drawing board, because
the patent is limited to "using a computer"?
Do you seriously expect me to pay royalties for R&D I do,
because there is no way to work around "using a computer",
when it comes to data collection, and data analysis?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 01:03 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: ukjaybrat on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 07:21 AM EDT |
"Broad patents are the only ones worth getting."
And that is exactly the kind of thinking that got us in this
mess by greedy corporations with greedy patent lawyers. To
them, yes the broad patents are the only ones worth getting
because when they are (unjustly) awarded, they can be used
to sue other companies that come up with workarounds or new
innovative ideas.
That's not the purpose of patents. Patents aren't awarded so
you can go around suing people. Patents are supposed to be
able to protect YOUR invention. YOUR bicycle powered
mechanical generator, not all mechanical generators.
If you don't understand what we are all telling you, if you
still disagree with everything, then I don't know what to
tell you.
You sound like you are either:
a) arguing for the sake of arguing
b) truly don't understand the purpose of patents
c) a patent lawyer and want to convince us that the real
purpose of patents are to be used as weapons to sue the
pants off everyone for no reason because your company is too
lazy to actually innovate anymore.
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
