Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 22:39 UTC
Legal "Samsung's got to be pretty happy right about now, after learning that the US Patent and Trademark Office has filed an initial ruling declaring Apple's rubber-banding patent invalid, as reported by FOSS Patents. The news was good enough that Samsung decided to share it with friends, that is, if US Federal Judge Lucy Koh can be considered a friend. According to the ruling, which Florian Mueller says isn't final, all 20 claims of Apple's patent (No. 7,469,381) are now invalid, including one that the iPhone maker had leveraged against Samsung in their recent legal showdown. The office found that Apple's invention was either anticipated by prior art (from Lira and Ording) or, in some cases, simply obvious." One down, 93485763827563856 to go.
Thread beginning with comment 539814
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: USPTO
by kwan_e on Wed 24th Oct 2012 04:26 UTC in reply to "RE: USPTO"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Not gonna happen.

USPTO has to be recreated as an organization that validates inventions for novelty, not an organisation to grant patents.


It's strange how you claim my suggestion is "not gonna happen", but propose an even more unlikely alternative. ;) As far as I can tell, encouraging the USPTO to Think Different about obvious patents is much more likely to occur than a complete overhaul, even though both you and I would agree the overhaul is a better alternative (unlikely though it may be).

As long as we're suggesting crazy alternatives as a valid logical response to likely suggestions, I propose this:

Abolish software and design patents. Abolish the transfer of patents and coyprights. Abolish non-compete employee contracts. Make reverse engineering a guaranteed constitutional right (if it isn't already; I'm not American). Any company that wants to maintain its lead must keep their inventions as trade secrets (with a buttload of cryptography for software "inventions"), and treat their employees well so that they won't sell secrets to future employers.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: USPTO
by JAlexoid on Wed 24th Oct 2012 13:24 in reply to "RE[2]: USPTO"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Simply because the whole organisation is structured and designed to grant patents, not validate the inventions. The way that the organisation is structured and the legal background force the examiners to grant patents even if they might not agree with them.(This is not my position, it's the position of PubPat.org. They give good reasoning for me to take that position as well.)

Apple's universal search patent was in review stage for years, because it was rejected 6(if memory serves) times by different examiners.

Reply Parent Score: 4