Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Jul 2012 11:52 UTC
Legal "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.
Order by: Score:
Proof
by kwan_e on Sat 14th Jul 2012 15:03 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Proof
by auouymous on Sat 14th Jul 2012 19:25 UTC in reply to "Proof"
auouymous Member since:
2011-09-23

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?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Proof
by sagum on Sat 14th Jul 2012 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Proof"
sagum Member since:
2006-01-23

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Proof
by kwan_e on Sun 15th Jul 2012 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Proof"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

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.

Reply Score: 2

Patent reform is easy in the USA
by cjcox on Sat 14th Jul 2012 16:55 UTC
cjcox
Member since:
2006-12-21

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.

Reply Score: 6

Comment by Gone fishing
by Gone fishing on Sat 14th Jul 2012 17:52 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

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.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Gone fishing
by ilovebeer on Sat 14th Jul 2012 22:05 UTC in reply to "Comment by Gone fishing"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

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.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Gone fishing
by kwan_e on Sun 15th Jul 2012 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Gone fishing"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

To paraphrase a saying:

Common sense prevails when all else has failed.

Edited 2012-07-15 01:26 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Gone fishing
by Gone fishing on Sun 15th Jul 2012 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Gone fishing"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Gone fishing
by quackalist on Sun 15th Jul 2012 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Gone fishing"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Gone fishing
by kwan_e on Mon 16th Jul 2012 03:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Gone fishing"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

My paraphrase was ironic, because I don't think the US Patdown System has exhausted its supply of stupid yet. When (if) that supply is exhausted, then we'll see common sense being applied consistently.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Gone fishing
by Gone fishing on Mon 16th Jul 2012 05:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Gone fishing"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

I agree - I said optimistic in the long term.

I fear that only after much damage is done and greed and stupidity has run its cause will be see sense prevail.

The fact that I see sense ultimately prevailing is optimistic at least in a limited sense.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Gone fishing
by zima on Tue 17th Jul 2012 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Gone fishing"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Or maybe that is a lack of (your) common sense? ;p

Reply Score: 2