Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th May 2010 12:40 UTC
Legal All the way back in 2007 (The Year Gilmore Girls ended), a company called IP Innovation sued Red Hat and Novell over a patent related to the concept of virtual desktops. It seems like common sense hasn't been drained entirely from the US justice system, since yesterday, the courts declared said patent invalid.
Thread beginning with comment 422643
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Prior art? That's it?
by spiderman on Tue 4th May 2010 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Prior art? That's it?"
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

Almost everything seems obvious after it has been explained, and the USPTO originally believed this "invention" was not obvious (at least to the USPTO) at the time.

The problem is that the US patent office is run by incompetent people who don't believe anything about obviousness of "inventions" since they don't even understand what they are about. They just give a pass to anything that is submitted. They have never filtered anything as obvious AFAIK.
I'm not exaggerating things. This is the sad plain truth.
Look at that patent for instance:
http://www.wikipatents.com/US-Patent-7028023/linked-list
It has been granted in 2006, and it's about patenting linked lists. The USPTO gave it a pass. I wouldn't be surprised to find multiple duplicate patents if I had time to review all this crap they call inventions.
I don't believe the court takes the USPTO seriously at this point.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Prior art? That's it?
by Tuishimi on Tue 4th May 2010 15:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Prior art? That's it?"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Holy Moly! How can you patent a data structure?!!??

I need a drink.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Prior art? That's it?
by Tuishimi on Tue 4th May 2010 15:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Prior art? That's it?"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

That so upset me I just wrote the president/vice president, my two senators and my representative. For the love of Pete.

They need to reorganize have a pool of resources for every major field that can intelligently review incoming patents. Sort of like a wiki, but perhaps choose the people a little more carefully.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Prior art? That's it?
by jackastor on Tue 4th May 2010 18:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Prior art? That's it?"
jackastor Member since:
2009-05-05
RE[4]: Prior art? That's it?
by big_gie on Tue 4th May 2010 23:22 in reply to "RE[3]: Prior art? That's it?"
big_gie Member since:
2006-01-04


Yeah, you could find plenty of prior art for this... April fool have been there for a long time ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1