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
Article of Manufacture: nothing to do with Patent Law | 545 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Not that the patenability of a Statue matters
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 03:52 PM EDT
to the point as to whether or not something carved out of something natural by a
man is made by man or not.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Article of Manufacture: nothing to do with Patent Law
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 04:30 PM EDT

To quote Patent Law:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter or...
There is nothing about "article of manufacture" in that anywhere.

As for composition of matter:

    Marble already exists in nature
As a result:
    Even if you did create a crystalline composition that held 100% of the attributes of marble - it should be rejected in basic 101 analysis because it is not new.
As a result, the only agreement we'll have is that we disagree.

As for pointing to a patent that the USPTO granted as evidence of patentability:

    The USPTO can not be trusted as a reliable source because of all the invalid patents they have granted!
I'll stick with my understanding of what the Supremes state along with my reasonable understanding of what makes sense when the Supremes have not spoken.

However, with that in mind, I'll clarify my position:

    With regards the "design of the statue" - I humbly state my opinion is that the patent was improperly granted.
    With regards the "composition of matter" that the statue was made from: if it was new, and the patent was granted on the particular composition of matter, then it seems appropriately granted.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

don't conflate design patents with utility patents (n/t)
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 05:32 PM EDT
Otherwise we will think even less of you than before ...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Yes RAS, Statues are articles of manufacture and/or compositions of matter
Authored by: PJ on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 10:17 PM EDT
Design patents are not the same as
utility patents. Different standard.

[ 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 )