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.
Thread beginning with comment 526804
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Proof
by sagum on Sat 14th Jul 2012 21:00 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Proof
by kwan_e on Sun 15th Jul 2012 01:25 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 Parent Score: 2