Patently-O Tidbits

  1. Tafas v. Dudas: Court refuses to allow discovery and orders summary judgment briefs due by December 20, 2007. [PLI BLOG]
  2. Design patents and Section 101 [Patently-O]
  3. Qualcomm sues Nokia for patent infringement in England [Thomson Financial]
  4. Declaratory Judgment Question: Where should you file a declaratory judgment action against a NPE patent holder? Motorola just sued Rembrandt in Delaware. Co-plaintiffs in the DJ action include Cisco, Arris Group, Thomson, Ambit, and Netgear. (07–cv-752). A few more plaintiffs and we could have a class action…
  5. Michael Martin wonders whether we’re approaching an “efficient market for ideas” (i.e., how fast are transaction costs dropping?)

9 thoughts on “Patently-O Tidbits

  1. really? really anonymous …

    count the dots … there are many and they may be coincidence …

    who represented ntp? who is white house counsel? what did at least one of the justices do from 1982-1986?

    i dont believe in conspiracy …

  2. angry dude will go hungry

    yeah … eBay & COBRA seems about right for you (i believe you fit the karl rove “permanent” republican model – “self-employed” courtesy of eBay – sure sounds great! – now find yer “self” and get “self” to pay you) -

    trade secrets … uh-huh … and in what art? i will posit that there is no trade secret that cannot be reverse-engineered and no value to trade secrets unless recognition is FIRST attributed to the good/service being *protected*.

    “positional piracy” is only a problem if what is being “pirated” is actually recognized.

    so, on my way to hell with the patents … i ask you the following:

    what would you REALLY do if you knew the coca cola recipe/trade secret/sugar mix? and, would it matter?

    (instead of whining write your senators and ask you friends to write them too …)

  3. <>The Trouble with Troll Talk is similar to the Trouble with Tribbles<>

    Using the term “patent troll” is akin to using racial slur terms.

    Troll talk is terrible trouble because it tends:

    <> To justify big business stealing the published products of Inventors, i.e., their patent rights;

    <> To justify PTO management’s attempted dramatic denigration and diminution of the U.S. patent system;

    <> To also justify Congress’s attempted dramatic denigration and diminution of the U.S. patent system;

    <> Courts to advance judicially dishonest, result oriented rush to judgment decisions against self-employed Inventors; and

    <> The Supreme Court to beg the Constitution and carefully carve the very heart out of the patent system for self-employed Inventors while preserving that same Right for big business. (Question: Without “the exclusive Right” i.e., the absolute Right to an injunction, how can an Inventor stop an infringer from infringing his valid patent after it is proven in court to be infringed? Answer, he can’t. A patent without an injunction is like a revolver with bullets. Food for thought!, at least it was for this ordinary inventor.)

    Thus, troll talk is terrible trouble because it tends to cause big business, and all three branches of our government (the executive branch, Congress and the judicial branch) to act unlawfully and dreadfully, and to destabilize, demoralize, deflate, discourage, depress, denigrate and diminish America’s democratic government.

    Under any guise, the mere use of the words “patent troll” creates all these problems, and in particular impacts less sophisticated citizens (those not in our profession) more dramatically, just like racial slur words.

    Therefore, please take heed: the use of the term “patent troll” should henceforth be banned by all concerned and knowledgeable IP people.

    Be careful when you kick a stone down a mountain; you may get a lot more than you bargained for at the bottom.

    Oh, yes, the Trouble with Tribbles, for you younger folks: if you start with two, you can wind up with a whole Starship full.

  4. Re: The Constitution’s PROMISE to an inventor is CONDITIONAL.

    Please bear with me, but I lost the thread to which this comment directly refers.

    My comment describes what the Constitution does in fact conditionally guarantee an Inventor.

    IF Congress votes to use its discretional Power (i.e., “The Congress shall have Power”) under the “patent clause,” Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, i.e.,

    “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”

    the Inventor is THEREBY GUARANTEED by a Constitutionally binding promised, or call it a Constitutional Commitment or call it a Contract Conveyed and Confirmed under the Constitution or call it whatever you want,

    “the EXCLUSIVE Right” (EMPHASIS ADDED) as the quid pro quo for publishing his invention. It is as Constitutionally simple as that for this reason:

    Unless an Amendment is made under the Amendment provision (Article V; none has been made to date), anything less than “the EXCLUSIVE Right” from ANY SOURCE WHATSOEVER does not wash with the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2).

    * * * * *
    More detail may be found in these comments:

    link to

    link to

  5. I’m starting to wonder if the new rules aren’t just a continuation of the corruption we began seeing (that continues to manifest itself through the reexams) in the NTP v. RIM case… and that this may all be about politics and political money at its core (BlackberryGate):

    link to

    Wouldn’t it be a strange twist if no one in upper management at the USPTO actually gives a hoot about the backlog. (They certainly don’t give a hoot about patent applicants.)

  6. Ha

    Keep dreaming, dude

    After EBay I’m much better off with trade secrets

    Something little is better than big nothing

    To hell with patents

  7. AGREED.

    “The transaction costs of our system of property rights in ideas has hardly vanished because of the Internet. Yet the Internet is dramatically diminishing these transactions costs. The costs of searching for prior art, freedom to operate, and ownership information may have dropped the most because of the public availability of search algorithms, and databases of patent disclosures and assignments. But even the costs of communicating ideas has dropped as the Internet has enabled us to send a mindboggling array of media around the world in an instant.

    Imagine how this shift in economics could aid our government in “promoting the progress of science and the useful arts” if, instead of narrowing the scope of property rights in ideas, we were to broaden and strengthen the system by tailoring these property rights to correspond to the economic value that inventors contribute to our economy. The emergence of a market for ideas would level the playing field for independent inventors and startup companies in their attempt to compete with big business. Whatever else we see emerge from patent reform, here’s to the hope that our reforms will promote the emerging market for ideas.”

    the marketplace for ideas belongs to all of us (repeat “information wants to be free” -ly accessible – well, to the extent you can seek a balance between piracy and privacy) … reducing the cost of access to the patent process is inherently necessary for continued leadership in that marketplace … encouraging vigorous debate on intellectual property (the real metes and bounds) is a benefit to american innovation and the appetite for risk-taking necessary for productive entrepreneurialism …

Comments are closed.