100 thoughts on “Henry Ford, Patent Trolling, & the Goodlatte Innovation Act in Cartoon Form

  1. Dennis probably thinks this is all false invention claims but the reality is the oposite he wasent born yet when invention history started corruptly changing in 1954 after I was born. Fords were the trolls or goons actualy and the claims of them being the inventor of the automobile dident begin until the 50th aniversary parade in Detroit. Desoto was first by 20 years. Whitney never existed and I invented the cotton gin in the mid to late 1960s at a fabric store in Port Huron. Steve Jobes dident invent anything significant associated with apple or Radio Shack I did the first store opened on Stone st. Port Huron Mi. my hometown

  2. The narator has some severe misconceptions of where invention comes from Steve Jobes dident invent anything in parent conceptions nor did Eli Whitney if he even existed. He is not realizing the abject poverty of everyone on the planet until my birth in 1953. Everything has been run back in time to conciel the true conciever me. The primary problem with out of court settlements has been solved by the Supremes so the bill is unnessary in its present form. If we were designing progressive legislation then the biggest problems of the system would be attacked by all legislators instead of regressive corrupt bills that are constantly entering congress. Patrolling representives could become obsoleted with a requirement that attorneys represent indegent inventors 1/2 of the time and add the costs to there wealthest corperate cliants. The root cause of 1/2 of suits is disputed inventorship This problem could be solved by requiring startup companies to register new products when they are started up on the internet and patent office instead of backdating the conception in inter company memos. Of course this will need to be independantly verified because of the need to stop inter USPTO files corruptions inventor frauding

  3. How many “patent trolls” are there? The EFF’s list has 15 “patent trolls”. (link to trollingeffects.org… The American Association of Advertising Agencies has 4 on their list. There’s the ArrivalStar portfolio, and Ultramercial. Seen any other lists? This may be a smaller problem than generally thought.

  4. This “cartoon” is indeed funny. It could well be used to argue for the elimination of the patent system entirely since patents cost consumers $$ and increase prices REGARDLESS OF WHO THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE PATENT IS!!! Lets just shut down the patent office and let everyone mass produce everything, cheaper. Great idea. Stupid politicians jumping on a bandwagon they know little about. I have one simple question — if a patent is valid, why can’t the owner enforce it?

    1. What Congress needs to keep in mind is that startups bring really new technology and products. If their patents are not enforceable, VC will not invest. This harms America big time.But there are real problems with US patents and patent law cause by patents on technology that cannot be effectively searched for prior art: software and business methods. There are also problems with issuing patent with excessively broad claims on narrow disclosures such that one can get a patent that literally covers, as did the Seldon patent, all cars based on the invention of one kind of engine. Imagine that? Imagine that you are the first to invent a certain kind of flash memory cell. Can you get a patent on all kinds of flash memory cells. One would think not, but the PTO issues these kind of patents all the time and the Federal Circuit does not see a problem.

      1. Ya its a parent conception without which the sub invention would not exist so it all belongs to the original conciever although in many cases you can buy the subinventions for lisencing fees cost and still make plenty of money. The big thing choking invention now is the money monopoly by big business and the banks and the government all conspiring to non fund top marketable inventions shuttering the system of the incentive to create

    2. Effectively shutting down the patent system without being seen to do so is the hidden agenda of these sort of people.

      1. I cant believe the citizens arent recalling their representatives from office there on the wrong side of the public intrests. Shutting down all human advancement with retartive legislation like there doing will not create jobs that their elected to do. They have got 10 years now into shutdown and their still looking for more overkill legislation to shut the door tighter.

  5. “Loser Pays” will eliminatevirtually 100% of legitimate patent infringement cases from independentinventors. The independent inventor has relied on the ability to hire attorneyson contingency. “Loser Pays” will eliminate virtually all contingencypatent litigation from independent inventors. The independentinventor will no longer be able to protect his property, unless he is independentlywealthy. This is the exact opposite of what our Patent System was created for.It is the exact opposite of what enabled America to become the greatestproducer of innovation in the world. What is being pushed in this cartoon isthe destruction of the most basic of American principles – the ability of theindividual to protect that which he owns. Anyone who cares about America shouldbe against this legislation.

    1. What I do not like is that the politicians seem to be in the employ of big business who really do not like startups in the first place. Think i4i. The big boys want to develop products in a world free from startup patents because they can deal with their competitors through cross licenses.They say this all the time, but not exactly this way. Their plan, though, is quite obvious.

      1. True Ned the big boys want the inventor as a subserviant slave for starvation wages and the congress is condoning and assisting their cival rights violations. Watch out for this one if it comes to a final vote theyll throw in everything but the kitchen sink at the last minute with no time for debate or change I dont know why they arent arrested for that behavior

      2. You are right, Ned, but what is at stake is huge. The right to defend ones property is the most basic element of freedom. Loser Pays will make it so an independent inventor cannot defend his patent unless he is independently wealthy. This is no different than a corporation dumping toxic waste in your back yard and you not having any legal recourse unless you are wealthy. This proposal is radically opposed to the ideals of America and those behind it should be ashamed of themselves.

    2. Looser pays in all cases will eliminate the challenge to existing laws that improve our justice system and ensure the finest justice that money cant buy instead of the present corruption

  6. A surprisingly good cartoon by Goodlatte. Though if he wants to defeat trolls fo realz, then why not simply ban the practice outright?

    1. Ban trolls (paralegal patrollers) outright then you ban the incentive to create for inventors resulting in system shutdown

        1. I was the one who created trolls (patrollers) to counteract the severe unlevel legal playing field big money creates. Now instead of working on the root issues like stopping infringement to begin with they are working on stopping any form of legal representation for the inventor. There has been some abuses by the patent purchasers but everyone has been delt with under present law and the supremes have even eliminated the ability to settle out of court by infringers so the major problems no longer exist or never existed. I am curious about how many actual cases they had i think the numbers are exagerated likley.

    2. Though if he wants to defeat trolls fo realz, then why not simply ban the practice outright?A simple thought from a simple mind.First, you have to define “a troll” in your law. Once you do that, the attorneys will find every loophole that make someone “not a troll” and make sure that their client (i.e., ex-troll) not a troll. Pretty simple … and a big waste of time for everybody involved.

      1. Oh horse sht. If you’re worried they’re going to try to get around it then attach criminal penalties to doing just that. He’s already acknowledged that what we’re dealing with is extortion in the video I believe. That sht needs criminal penalties, not mamby pamby nonsense sanctions where people are free to wank in the manner you’re afraid of if they’re willing to pay a fine on failure. Either that or simply take good care in what activity you deem legit and ban all else. And make the conditions more strict than they’ll ever want to meet illegitimately.I refuse to believe that there is no way to administer the patent system without trolling being legal, especially if you bring the might of the congressional staffers to the problem of drafting.

      2. This is a repost because disqus su x. Oh horse sht. If you’re worried they’re going to try to get around it then attach criminal penalties to doing just that. He’s already acknowledged that what we’re dealing with is extortion in the video I believe. That sht needs criminal penalties, not mamby pamby nonsense sanctions where people are free to wa nk in the manner you’re afraid of if they’re willing to pay a fine on failure. Either that or simply take good care in what activity you deem legit and ban all else. And make the conditions more strict than they’ll ever want to meet illegitimately.I refuse to believe that there is no way to administer the patent system without trolling being legal, especially if you bring the might of the congressional staffers to the problem of drafting.

        1. If you’re worried they’re going to try to get around it then attach criminal penalties to doing just thatYou truly don’t understand law, do you?He’s already acknowledged that what we’re dealing with is extortion in the video I believe.You truly don’t understand extortion, do you?I refuse to believe that there is no way to administer the patent system without trolling being legalYou truly don’t understand the alienability of property rights, do you?

          1. “You truly don’t understand law, do you?”Tell it to the AG of nebraska. “You truly don’t understand extortion, do you?”Tell it to Goodlatte. “You truly don’t understand the alienability of property rights, do you?”I understand that you’re a tar d who doesn’t know how to explain things to people he thinks don’t know something. But you’re welcome to explain away as I lol @ you like I do anon, your alien buddy.

            1. Tell it to the AG of nebraska.Didn’t a Federal Judge take him behind a woodshed?Tell it to Goodlatte.Yawn … wake me up when you have something interesting to say.

            2. Lulz, the federal judge might have a little bit more trouble taking Goodlatte and the judiciary committee out back when him and the AG (along with the posse the AG is forming) team up. The AG had to go after the letter writting before, doing what he could within the law. But the laws can change. And It may be a small posse for now, but it can only get bigger as the abuse goes on longer and longer and has more and more of an effect.

            3. I certianly understand extortion as the worlds largest victum. And with a congress that could care less about inventor security there is going to be no more marketable patents in this system. Anything that is valuable is going to be fought over and the true inventor killed for his intellectual property and new provisions in the vile AIA allow patent reassignment without payment to the estate very paganly primative

        2. If you close every so-called loophole against so-called trolls, then the value of the patent system to individual inventors will be exactly zero. But then, that’s exactly what people like this senator actually want.

          1. If they continue the concept of requiring bonds for indegent inventors then we can draw no other conclusion there on the side of corruption and recieving payoffs

          2. So you and some people assert. I rather doubt it. Though to be sure, I am also a proponent of getting court costs down to where ordinary people can afford them. But noooo, that’s out of the question.

      3. It should be realized that paralegal patrollers are working in the same capacity as attorneys who also dont manufacture anything but suck the lifeblood out of companies that dont want to pay inventors anything or see them get funded to become their competition in free market capitolism

        1. The only was to balance the scales of justice on this one is require the attorneys for the companies to pay their own legal expenses if they loose the case. This takes the legal costs off the flegeling infringing companies that can ill afford legal costs. Of coures those companies shouldent have been allowed to startup without agreements with the true concievers. Immediate novelty check and lockering will definatively decide who invented it so no infringing begins to occur. The theft of the vigirous original market for these products is not compensated by 25% verdicts 10 to 15 years later and a legal battle the concievers cant aford to begin. It should be triple damages 75% and a trial within a year to maintain the incentive to create and discourage infringements

  7. Wasn’t it Ford that was accused of stealing the intermittent windshield wiper from a sole inventor. Does anyone else find that to be incredibly ironic?

    1. The “irony” is that a “TexasPatentLawyer” thinks that intermittent windshield wipers are remotely analogous to the computer-implemented junk being asserted by the typical patent troll.

    2. Yes Ford stole the invention from a sole inventor me as far as conception but two others were involved as developer theftors. But that certianly wasent the only invention stolen by them like around a hundred major ones

  8. Cute cartoon, and there are some good proposals in the Innovation Act and proposed by the Law Professors on the issue. But quite an over-simplification, overstatement, and clearly not the most balanced presentation of a complex issue.

  9. Through all of this effort to retard patent trolling, I worry about the good old “Saturday morning inventor”, and what we are going to do to that great American for the benefit of the IBMs and Googles. While true patent trolling is a real problem that must be addressed, I worry that protecting those IBMs and Googles to the detriment of the Ordinary Joe is the real intent of many of these legislative proposals. Goodlatte’s story may have given a much different impression had he gone back just a few years earlier in Henry Ford’s life, when he was one of those Ordinary Joe’s struggling against the already-established automotive industry. The dream of every Ordinary Joe tinkering in his basement Saturday after Saturday, year after year, trying to build that better mousetrap or create a better social network is that some large company, capable of commercializing the invention the way he could never do in today’s restrictive economic environment, will repay his efforts with a license and a handsome royalty so that he can share in that American Dream along with the execs at that company (who, by the way, likely have not an ounce of American ingenuity). These Ordinary Joes are the real innovators that have truly made America great, in my view, by demonstrating the opportunities that the patent system enables… by giving the rest of us hope, and a reason to keep tinkering. Their efforts are “Yankee Ingenuity” at is finest. The fear that Acme Mousetraps, with its team of “suits”, is going to find a legal way to steal Joe’s idea and make another few million dollars from it has always been much more real than the fear that little Joe is going to somehow “stifle mousetrap innovation and drive up the costs of mousetraps”. Are we now going to see the Acme Mousetraps of the world emboldened with a new defensive weapon to stomp on the poor Joe’s?…Stealing the fruits of his efforts in the first place, then stealing what little else he had and branding him the criminal simply because he now falls within the definition of a “patent troll”? We must remember that the Joe’s of the world often have no ability or intention to manufacture their inventions. They love to tinker and toil and invent, and they believe that when they hit the big one, they will strike it rich…The world will beat a path to their door. There is nothing wrong with that… that is a huge part of the American Dream… often the very thing that inspired so many innovators to move here. We must be very careful through all of this to avoid laws that further reduce the odds that an Ordinary Joe can make it rich if he invents that better mousetrap… whether he can manufacture it himself or not. We cannot let this be used in a way that furthers the barriers to entry that the new marketplace already imposes on Joe. IBM, Google, and Acme Mousetrap must pay a fair royalty if they want to enjoy the fruits of Joe’s efforts, and whatever “patent trolling” legislation we enact cannot relieve them of that obligation.

  10. Goodlatte is slandering Ransom E. Olds by calling him a “patent troll”. Olds was one of the leading members of the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers, which licensed the Selden patent. Olds made the first mass produced cars on the first assembly line, years before Ford. Below is the Olds Curved Dash Runabout, first produced in 1902, before Ford Motor was even founded. 19,000 were built. Without Ford, there would have been plenty of mass produced cars. Packard. Olds and some others (Buick, Packard, and Pontiac) formed General Motors in 1908, which was soon ahead of Ford in both technology (Ford stuck with the Model T for 19 years) and volume.

    1. Thank you for your informative post. IMHO, it important that the those with the knowledge – do their best to rebut this obvious Goodlatte gruel.

    2. Goodlatte defines patent trolls as filing “frivolous lawsuits.” As discussed by many, it is darn hard to know what is “frivolous” in advance of at least some fact-finding. Goodlatte leaves out the core reason there are so many infringement suits filed – both frivolous and valid. The reason is that companies no longer see the need to pay license fees for any patents, no matter how blatant their infringement. As recently as the 1950s, large companies like GE routinely purchased or licensed patents from independent inventors. Not true any more. The ONLY way that an independent inventor – or a company that has a good invention but does not wish to make an associated product – can reap any benefit from the time and money invested in that innovation is to sell the patent (for pennies, usually) to a patent broker. The patent ends up in the hands of a “non-practicing entity.” Nothing non-innovative about that. To get the core of the problem, companies need to be encourages to license patents that they are actually infringing. Two changes to the current system would make a dramatic improvement. First, a standardized and reasonable licensing structure, perhaps similar to what Judge James Robart of the Federal District Court wrote in a 207-page opinion last April. (The case regarded FRAND licensing, but why not apply that as a standard for all patent licensing?) Second, an efficient (i.e., online) method of allowing companies to self-register for patent licensing, similar to what is now available for use of copyrighted material (such as plays or music). If licensing were easy, and license fees fairly computed to permit non-exclusive use, the cost of litigation would be so high, and rewards so small in comparison, that patent litigation would reserved for only the very high-value patents, and for significant, “legitimate” disputes.– Inventor and Patent Agent

      1. Mr. Inventor, haven’t you heard the argument made by the big boys is that they invent and the trolls do not. If the trolls have a patent that covers what they do, there is something wrong with the patent.While not agreeing that this is universally true, it is often true because the PTO has the habit of issuing broad functional claims on small disclosures, in addition to not being able to find public use prior art which is very important for business method and software patents. As a result, the PTO issues a host of patents that can literally read on the products and businesses of others.We need to stop issuing bad patents. Cleaning up functional claims, and ending business method patents once and for all should be included in the reforms.

        1. I’m all for eliminating bad patents, and the UPSTO has certainly issued more that their share. Inter parte review is a super-cheap (relatively) way to get those thrown out. So … I have little sympathy for those who claim that they have massive litigation costs for “clearly erroneously issued” patents.There is nothing wrong with business method patents. However, it is sure hard to think up truly innovative ways to sell stuff. I think the challenge is for the USPTO to find the prior art. Why doesn’t some enterprising graduate student in economics write a compendium of business models? Same problem with software. Seems to me that a good Ph.D. topic would be to compile a (wiki based?) database of software algorithms. I really think industry should take the ball on creating prior art indexes and resources. That is not the job of the USPTO. They are required to live with what’s available.

          1. When the likes of IBM first began pushing software patents, the problem about prior art was discussed — and then ignored. It is a problem that has not gone away and is not a minor problem.Regarding business methods, the problem is they are not eligible. Eligibility cannot be raised in IPRs.Moreover, with both software and BMs, the prior art is of the pubic use variety. This is not admissible in IPRs.Regarding functional claims, that is not a patentability issue that can be raised in an IPR.

            1. When the likes of IBM first began pushing software patents, the problem about prior art was discussed — and then ignoredYeah … that is because there was little prior art at the time. BTW … let me clue you into something, no industry creates perfect prior art. There will always be things practiced by people that aren’t described in printed publications.

            2. “Yeah … that is because there was little prior art at the time.”Maybe patent prior art. But if you think there was little published on the subject you’ve got to be joking. You could probably fill a small library with pre-1995 software publications.

            3. You could probably fill a small library with pre-1995 software publications.1995? Software patents were around a lot longer than that.And you could fill a large library with pre-[pick your date] publications on [pick your technology].

            4. I thought he said when IBM started pushing for them. When specifically did they start pushing for them if not 1995? I’m sure some other random bozos like Martin got a few here or there, but hardly anything major like after the explosion in the 90′s. State street and all that nonsense. “And you could fill a large library with pre-[pick your date] publications on [pick your technology].”Which is kind of the point. And which goes over your head. Every time.

            5. Which is kind of the point.The salient point, which eludes you, is that denying patents for a particular type of technology because a lack of prior art in that industry is a poor excuse. New industries always start with a dearth of prior art.

            6. “The salient point, which eludes you, is that denying patents for a particular type of technology because a lack of prior art in that industry is a poor excuse”Your subjective use of the word “poor” here is respectfully contested. But even if it were, that’s fine, because there are a million more. “New industries always start with a dearth of prior art.”That’s a mighty fine strawman you have erected. Premium straw, who’s your provider? But besides that, so what? We’re talking about an old industry, not a new one. Software begins in 1940′s-50′s. Starts being patented in earnest in the 90′s. 40-45 years later. And notably while there is a dearth of prior art available in the patent literature but while there is at the same time a wealth of prior art outside of such.

            7. 6,Your habit of mislabeling points as straw is respectfully contested. You obviously know very little about the history of this subject (or perhaps you are playing yet again to your ‘character’ and are being purposefully ignorant of that history). You are not paying attention to the excuses being given (by the anti-software people).

            8. That’s a mighty fine strawman you have erectedAdd strawman to the list of things you know little about.We’re talking about an old industry, not a new one. Software begins in 1940′s-50′s. Starts being patented in earnest in the 90′sDon’t confuse old with well-developed. Software from the 70s and 80s was painful to work with. Browsers in the mid-90s did little more than display text and pictures. Patents in software mirrored the growth of the software industry, which is to be expected.And notably while there is a dearth of prior art available in the patent literature but while there is at the same time a wealth of prior art outside of such.That is a USPTO problem.

            9. “Don’t confuse old with well-developed. “I didn’t. “Software from the 70s and 80s was painful to work with”Trust me I’m aware, that’s what I cut my teeth on as I’m sure many other readers here did. “Browsers in the mid-90s did little more than display text and pictures.”Sooooooo… wut? “Patents in software mirrored the growth of the software industry, which is to be expected.”Not really. But you’re free to revise history any which way you like. The rest of us will simply use actual history as our guide. How’s that sound brosefus? “That is a USPTO problem.”Um no, it isn’t. The PTO can issue whatever it wants when it doesn’t have the art it needs. The only people that it is a problem for are those accused of infringing those patents that were not taken care of at the office.

            10. Patent_Guru – exactly right. Just take a look at the whining that went on in the Benson era (and the worthless dicta in Benson itself).If that whining were to be given credence, then NO advances would be possible in any art not present in the 1700s and we would freeze rather than promote the arts.The fact of the matter is that 101 was written expansively because we cannot know a priori where innovation may sprout and ALL new areas of innovation will lack such ready compendiums of prior art.

          2. As a patent agent who used to be a searcher for years, I think that the SOP of most Examiners is to do a lousy search and then write laughable rejections based on art that isn’t close, with the help of In Re Morris (BRI). The solution would be to raise the quality of their searches so that they might actually cite the closest art, which rarely happens. Of course, if they say they aren’t given time to do a good search, there may be some merit to that. If they think the art they cite is the best art, believe me I could do better myself.

        2. True Ned the companies all claim that they invented it and try to assert that the true conciever couldent have because they stole their patents and now have R+D facilities that the little guy cant compete against. and they with the help of Oboma and Capos and the Congress have tilted the scales of justice badley in favor of thefts. They wont consider establishing integrity in the system with my plan of immediate novelty checks and lockering to shut out patent thieves claims so we know where they are coming from. They cant invent anything significant they dont posess the inventative faculty as far as original parent conceptions

      2. The way to fight patent trolls is legislation to insure that patents are uninfringed by companies and that they are dealing fairley with independant inventors. Villianizing the nessity of paralegal partnershiping business partners (patrollers)of inventors is not the answer. If the invention represents a minor improvement on the existing then fair rate charts need to be established to determine compensation without court involvement although some of those can make or break consumer demand for a product.

      3. “Goodlatte defines patent trolls as filing “frivolous lawsuits.””Nah bro, he simply notes that trolls do file such things. That’s not him defining trolls.

    3. Thanks for the history. Still, I think there was a group boycott against Ford, and for the reason that he was price cutting. This was blatantly illegal conduct in my view.

        1. No Desoto was first by 27 years although the tune is snappy it never existed in the time period. I dident invent songs singing musical instruments or the phonograph or accompyments until 1955 and mary had a little lamb was the first song. I did that with the formers of hitsville USA. The antique looking phonograph on the RCA record lable I invented also around 1958-9 and the stereo record and or 33 rpm records I think in my basement in Grosse Point Woods Mi.

    4. This type of vehicle shown here never existed until retro balognists started smearing the true history of invention. All Desotos and Fords were box panel truck style vehicles until the all new all steel body Plymouth was unveiled by Desoto in 1928

  11. Good Latte (is that from Starbucks?) reference to the Seldon patent controversy with Ford kind of misstates things just a bit. There were two problems: 1. The patent office had granted a very broadly worded patent that covered all “cars” with gasoline engines, even though Seldon had invented but one type of gasoline engine. 2. The automobile manufacturers had formed an association to mutually license the patent to members, but excluded Ford from membership because he was undercutting prices due to his invention of mass assembly. Ford’s court victory was attributable to the fact the courts ultimately construed the patent to cover what Seldon disclosed and equivalents despite the broad wording of his claims. Now, had the Good Mr. Latte discussed the facts just a bit more, one would quickly realize that the ultimate villain here was the PTO for not confining the patent claim to the disclosure, but instead allowing what we now recognize to be a functional claim, a claim that covers the independent inventions of others. Such claims were struck down in Morse, Perkins Glue, Wabash Appliance and Halliburton; and were limited to the corresponding structure and equivalents in Westinghouse, cited by Graver Tank as the reverse doctrine of equivalents.If we are going to solve patent problems, it is this problem. We have to recognize that patents cannot ultimately cover more than what is disclosed and equivalents.

    1. An interesting assertion Ned, if the patent bar would get on board perhaps there would be a brighter future yet.

      1. Yes, I can see it now: “No Mr. Client, I will no longer pursue broad coverage for you because I’m “on board” with the examining corps, who are delighted to issue patents as long as they are narrow to the point of worthlessness, and also because conferring legitimacy on patents only if they are trivial to design around is now known as righteousness.” I’ll send out letters to all my clients directly.

    2. but instead allowing what we now recognize to be a functional claimHow do you reconcile this with method claims?

      1. Patent_Guru,Simple: A functional claim is effectively a single means claim with nominal elements added.Method: Two or more steps. Two, not one, and the one not being nominal.

        1. Almost anything that can be written as a device with an element having some type of “functional limitation” I can rewrite as a method claim. In the end, it doesn’t matter much.

          1. Patent, do no deliberately misunderstand me.1. A functional claim in a combination is functional at the point of novelty and not in any combination.2. Old elements of a combination can and should be claimed functionally.3. A method involving two or more steps is not functional at the point of novelty even if rewritten as an apparatus claim.

            1. A functional claim in a combination is functional at the point of novelty and not in any combinationYou keep pushing this issue, but do you have any good policy reasoning for this?For example, consider the situation where, in a combination of several elements, the “point of novelty” is that A rotates around a longitudinal axis of B. Moreover, how A rotates around a longitudinal axis of B doesn’t matter. Why do I have to claim a structure when it doesn’t matter what the structure is? One skilled in the art can think of a dozen or more different ways of doing it. Why do I have to disclose each and every one of them?Now, if I disclose one embodiment, you might argue that the one embodiment encompasses the claimed genus. However, if I disclose two different embodiments, then I have enabled the genus with more than one species.A specification is written for one skilled in the art — not as a laundry list of every possible embodiment.

            2. Policy arguments? Galore. Read Morse, Perkins Glue, Wabash Appliance and Halliburton. Claiming an invention by the way it operates or its result is verboten.As to the distinctions, about combination and old elements, the first is discussed in Halliburton. The second in Faulkner v. Gibbs. Frederico made it clear that 112, p.6, was not intended to overturn these cases when he said that single means claims were still verboten, and that would include such claims adding nominal elements.

            3. GaloreStart spilling them.While, I’m thinking of it, is the term “fastener” descriptive of form or function?

            4. What Ned fails (and continues to fail) to realize that ALL of this is merely different rungs on the ladder of abstraction.

            5. Patent Guru, given your replies, esp. that patent law was replaced in ’52, and your apparent refusal to even read the cases I cited, I find it very hard to discuss this issue with you. 1. If the claim literally covers the independent inventions of others, it is too broad and operates against the policies of the constitution: Morse and all the cases following.2. If a claim does not contain any of the novel apparatus or method, but simply claims a result, it is invalid. Morse. Cf., Tarczny Hornock.3. Adding a range to the sensitivity of the Halliburton-type claim does not solve problem 2 even if it solves the other problem about definiteness.4. Claims that describe how two parts cooperate are not indefinite for that reason.5. Fastener is apt if the disclosure demonstrates that the type of fastening is irrelevant, e.g., the element is old in the combination.

            6. If the claim literally covers the independent inventions of others, it is too broad and operates against the policies of the constitutionClaims cover after-inventions all the time. No problem with that. As far as covering prior inventions, then that is prior art.Too broad? That is it? Structural limitations can be broader or narrower than functional limitations.If a claim does not contain any of the novel apparatus or method, but simply claims a result, it is invalidIs it ‘function’ or ‘result’? A function is different than a result — sometimes.Fastener is apt if the disclosure demonstrates that the type of fastening is irrelevantSo you are saying that the type of devices that meets the function is irrelevant … even if it is the point of novelty?BTW … no comment on recent SCOTUS jurisprudence about reading limitations into the laws not expressed by Congress?What you apparently fail to appreciate is that the English language is very fluid. Functional language can also be structural language. As such, why should we place more importance over one type of language than the other? Is there any policy considerations beyond “functional language can be too broad” for doing so?your apparent refusal to even read the cases I citedI’m fond of reading relevant cases.

            7. Still, Patent_Guru, the Supreme Court says it much better than I do. I would urge you to read the cases. They are still good law as only Congress can overrule the Supreme Court and Congress has not.

            8. Claim, A, B, B having a longitudinal axis and A rotates around said longitudinal axis. I don’t see that that claim is functional at all. It describes structure, has more than one element, all of which are required to cooperate. Again, see Faulner v. Gibbs. The SC approved of such claims after Halliburton.

            9. Next consider an old apparatus for measuring the depth of a oil well being drilled that includes a sound inducer, a pressure sensor and a recorder. The specification states that one can see the marks corresponding to the tubing collars on the recording, but not very well.Now claim that same combination, but add that the pressure sensor is more sensitive to the echoes of the tubing collars without stating how that is done, just the result, so that the number of collars might be better counted. Assume the disclosure discloses a mechanical tuner for enhancing sensitivity.Is the combination new? No. What is new? The increased sensitivity. Does the claim describe any of the novel structure or methods? No. Does the claim read on all ways of increasing sensitivity? Yes.Is that legal under controlling SC precedent? No.But, you and I both know such claims are allowed ALL THE TIME.

            10. the pressure sensor is more sensitive to the echoes of the tubing collarsMore sensitive? More sensitive than what? Your claim is indefinite.Regardless, less say pressure sensitivity can be measured and is expressed as &, and I claim “wherein & is greater than 70.” Is that functional or not?Is that legal under controlling SC precedent?Controlling? New patent laws in 1952, and the Supreme Court has recently said Courts “should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed.”

            11. A rotates around said longitudinal axis.A rotating around the longitudinal axis is functional. Rotating is an activity — not a form. Regardless, the problem with your distinction is that it does not recognize the English language’s ability to transform form into function and vice-versa. Does a “light” describe something by form or function? What about a “distributor”?BTW — the law of the land is Courts “should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed.” Where can you find your limitations on permissible claim language expressed in the patent laws?

    3. Ned you need to realize the gross inacuracy of invention history. The Seldon car never existed the only car preceeding Fords 1903 startup was the Desoto began in 1883 in the same town Port Huron Mi.

      1. Huh? What? The automobile industry, I thought, was well established by the turn of the century. I thought the first car produced for sale was produced by Diamler in Deutschland in the mid ’80s.link to daimler.com…The linked article states that the first Diamler was made in 1885. Desoto beat that date if it was 1883.

        1. No that mercedes replica dident first apear until a photograph in a invention history book hit the library shelves in 1964-6 I was the inventor of the public library also in that period

        2. My grandfathers auto company was Desoto Plymouth Chrysler until he died in 1953 then I took over inventing auto improvements. He invented the airplane also in around 1901 at the time it was the only facility capable of producing the parts for his worlds first bi plane two years before kitty hawk N.C. The Wrights lived a few blocks from my great grandfathers house in Port Huron Mi. My mother in law actually bought the house in the 1970s. No the automobile was not well established at all you either bought a Desoto or a horse and carriage. The Desoto was copied exactley or close when Fords began production in 1903 on Conner st. Port huron right behind my grandfathers Desoto plant espionagers I think and aparantly borrowed 100000 for the startup from my grandfather although its rumored they dident repay the debt conners I think.

    1. Ya using the terminalogy troll instead of the reality of paralegal patroller is costing the US hundreds of thousands of jobs due to unconcieved invention incentive to create destruction. Plus they arent working on any of the critical issues like the 40 methods inventors are cheated of there IP rights in the present system

Comments are closed.