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
No. NO. | 258 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
you need a cross license for this?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 04:05 PM EDT
"You can still patent regenerative and work out a license or cross license
with Mr. Mechanical if you like."

In other words, the inventor of the useless and silly bicycle powered battery
charger is gifted by the state with the power to collect money from the work of
scientists and engineers that build a usable product.

Not all that different from a business method patent.

--

Bondfire "thats the way you do it, money for nothin and your chicks for
free"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No.
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 04:42 PM EDT
If all forms of mechanical were too broad, then there is some other form of "mechanical" in the prior art and the claim is not valid on that basis. If there is not "mechanical" prior art, then the claim to all "mechanical" is valid and you lost the race.
Samuel Morse tried that kind of argument when he claimed all uses of electromagnetism for telegraphy purposes and he lost. It is not possible to invent all uses of mechanical power for a purpose. You have to point out particularly which use is invented.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No. NO.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 11:59 PM EDT
It does not matter what the inventor understood. What merits
patent protection is what he/she actually worked on and
demonstrated to work.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 04:24 AM EDT
I'm not an engineer but I suspect that a regenerative braking
system involves some mechanical linkage to the turning wheels
and so could (would by a lawyer) be defined as a
"mechanically-powered
generator" and so be covered even though it is nothing like
the pedal system of the original inventor.

Welcome to the world of Humpty Dumpty.

cm

[ 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 )