| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Judge blasts colleagues for allowing financial patent |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-07-14 11:52:24 |
| "The nation's top patent court has stopped a lower court from throwing out four patents on financial software, used to sue a bank dealing in foreign currency exchanges. The controversial opinion, countered by a blistering dissent by one member of the three-judge panel, shows that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is in disarray about just what is patentable. An 'abstract idea' can't win a patent, but the judges on the court are in disagreement about just what that is." It seems that US judges are getting more and more vocal about the US Patent Mess. Interesting. |
|
| Proof |
| By kwan_e on 2012-07-14 15:03:00 |
|
Forget about whether an idea is abstract or not. Prove the "infringement" has caused ANY damages. How about that? If a patent, in being infringed, does not actually do any business harm (not counting the lack of patent licensing revenue), then it's a pretty good indicator the patent has no value at all. |
 - Score: 2 |
| Patent reform is easy in the USA |
| By cjcox on 2012-07-14 16:55:34 |
|
The patent system needs to be reformed. And nothing should be left off of the table... Unless you're in the USA... and then, the following restrictions apply: 1. It can't impact Apple.. my cool devices are Apple devices... so can't touch that. 2. It can't impact Hollywood.. they donate to my campaigns and give me other perks <cough>. 3. It can't impact Google... I use them to search for everything... and I do mean... EVERYTHING... 4. It can't impact Facebook... I luv those guys! 5. It can't impact Microsoft... for whatever reason all of my not so cool devices run that OS... but without it, I can't do business. With all of that said, feel free to impact normal people, their lives, their freedoms... this you can do in patent reform. They aren't paying enough taxes anyhow... time to let them feel some pain. You know they're doing something illegal anyway. |
| - Score: 6 |
| Comment by Gone fishing |
| By Gone fishing on 2012-07-14 17:52:11 |
|
> The Federal Circuit is going back to allowing patents that are not only abstract, they are "literally ancient The same point I made recently about slide to lock. Doing something on a computer does not make it inventive innovation. I am optimistic that in the long run the law will resolve this problem and common sense will prevail. But how much harm and damage will be done? I mean damage to ordinary people in the real world. Unfortunately unethical companies, personal greed, corporate greed and shyster lawyers are a toxic mix. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE: Proof |
| By auouymous on 2012-07-14 19:25:54 |
| So after an R&D lab spends $100 million developing and testing a new drug anyone is free to infringe their patents because the lab only licenses the patents and doesn't actually make a product? |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Proof |
| By sagum on 2012-07-14 21:00:08 |
|
> So after an R&D lab spends $100 million developing and testing a new drug anyone is free to infringe their patents because the lab only licenses the patents and doesn't actually make a product? Thats slightly different as exact measures are used in the product and patent to create the drug or the way its process to be made into a drug form. The idea that patents can be abstract comes from the 'idea' of maybe if it looked or worked like this, but i haven't even made it myself yet. Or like apple has sone a few times 'but but it looks something like our iphone, cus it has a screen round edges and a button in the middle. yeah, no measurements or anything but a general 'i could look like this' abstract. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by Gone fishing |
| By ilovebeer on 2012-07-14 22:05:24 |
| I'm less optimistic than you are. When, throughout history, has common sense ever prevailed? Things are done for either financial or political reasons, never common sense. |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE[2]: Proof |
| By kwan_e on 2012-07-15 01:25:08 |
|
> So after an R&D lab spends $100 million developing and testing a new drug anyone is free to infringe their patents because the lab only licenses the patents and doesn't actually make a product? If an R&D lab spends $100 million to develop a useless patent, then YES. If the lab has a reputation of developing useless patents, no company would license those patents because it would not protect them. However, if the R&D lab's patents are useful, then infringement of those patents would cause business harm to the licensees, and they would sue the infringers. The lab would not suffer because they will still have the reputation of producing useful patents which actually do protect the licensee. Just because someone spends a lot of money in research does not ENTITLE them to any reward just because they did "research". It has to prove to have real worth. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Comment by Gone fishing |
| By kwan_e on 2012-07-15 01:26:07 |
|
To paraphrase a saying: Common sense prevails when all else has failed. Edited 2012-07-15 01:26 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[2]: Comment by Gone fishing |
| By Gone fishing on 2012-07-15 07:41:59 |
|
My optimism is down to Common Law - a product of the struggles of people dating back to Magna carta, and as a mechinism by which common sense and justice ultimately prevail. kwan e puts it well > To paraphrase a saying: Common sense prevails when all else has failed. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: Comment by Gone fishing |
| By quackalist on 2012-07-15 18:07:07 |
| Optimism or just wishful thinking? I'm rather more pessimistic about 'common sense' and 'justice' prevailing anytime soon on anything much and certainly not patents. |
| - Score: 3 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |