Over the past two years, a number of legislative proposals have been proposed to address the perceived problem of “patent trolls.” A common problem of the proposed reform mechanisms is that they would result in broad reforms against all patent owners rather than specifically targeting problematic elements. For those with general anti-patent bent, that result may be acceptable. However, the pro-patent lobby remains strong enough to ensure that congressional reforms will not completely eviscerate the system. In his guest post below, Mr. Shah outlines his proposal for reforms that more selectively target patent trolls. – Dennis
Guest Post by Varun A. Shah, Head of IP Development for Aruba Networks.
The Innovation Act was a great attempt at solving the patent troll problem for the Information Technology industry. For example, the Innovation Act proposed heightened pleading standards for asserting patent infringement. However, the Innovation Act is now stalled in Congress, in part, due to the rejection by the Pharmaceutical and Biotech industries of new requirements for enforcing patents such as the heightened pleading standards. A solution is needed that solves the patent troll problem for the Information Technology industry without reducing the patent assertion rights of the original patent Applicant, i.e., the innovator.
I propose modifying the Innovation Act to require heightened pleading standards only if the current patent owner is not (a) the original Applicant or (b) an assignee that the Applicant is obligated to assign to at time of filing. In other words, only third parties (e.g., patent trolls or middle men) that acquire the patent would be required to follow the heightened pleading standards for asserting patents. Similarly, other patent rights, damages, and requirements for patents would depend on whether or not the current patent owner is (a) the original Applicant /an assignee that the original Applicant is obligated to assign to at time of filing or (b) a third party that acquired the patent. In case of legitimate business spin-offs (that are not primarily a patent sale), the business spin-off or acquiring company would hold the same rights as the original Applicant, and would not be subject to heightened pleading requirements for asserting patents.
This proposal reduces the patent troll problem for the Information Technology industry without reducing the patent assertion rights for the original patent Applicant. More generally, this proposal will protect the interests of all innovators that actually generate the ideas/patents while partially diluting the value of the patents if commoditized and transferred to others that are abusing and burdening the patent system. This re-structuring of patent value is in-line with the true goals of the patent system, i.e., the promotion of innovation.
= = = = =
Mr. Shah suggests that those who care about these ideas should contact the policymakers: Senator Leahy, Representative Goodlatte, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
Another proposal in a somewhat similar vein is to use the current owner’s/assignee’s relationship to the original assignee as the basis for either requiring or not requiring some form of “compulsory” license in the event that a patent is not being worked.
In this type of arrangement, if a patented invention is not being worked, then:
(a) if the current owner is the original assignee (or a subsidiary, acquirer, etc.), then no licensing is required;
(b) if the current owner is not the original assignee (or a subsidiary, acquirer, etc.), then a form of compulsory licensing is required at a predetermined royalty rate.
Note that this is not a perfect plan, so I expect there will be objections. But the underlying idea is that it reduces the incentive of NPEs to acquire patents simply for the sake of assertion, while not creating a disincentive for research institutions or other forms of corporate R&D to develop inventions, since they are not required to license if not using the invention.
Alan, may I suggest that funding R&D through patents is legitimate. May I further suggest that funding startups based on their patents is legitimate and that failure to enforce those patents if a startup fails is more than counterproductive to patent system.
Next, what is wrong with law firms that specialize in enforcing patents. There are defense firms galore. Just as in the insurance industry, there are defense firms and firms that represented the injured.
Nothing is wrong with this model.
The ownership of patents to be enforced in an LLC is for tax purposes. The real relationship to be looked at is the licensing firm/law firm and the client, the failed startup or inventor, or Big Corp who are monetizing Rembrandts in the attic. All of this is legitimate.
The sole problem anyone has EVER identified is has to do with using the high cost of litigation to enforce shaky patents. Focus on litigation abuse. Focus on better patent quality.
After the two Supreme Court cases on attorneys fees this term, the tool to prevent litigation abuse has been restored to the district courts. One aspect of the problem has been solved.
Now let’s focus on the second: patent quality.
Job number 1: get rid of business method patents.
Job number 2: stop functional claiming.
LOL – same old merry-go-round from Ned.
““compulsory” license in the event that a patent is not being worked.”
Another excessively BAD idea.
Another proposal in a somewhat similar vein is to use the assignee’s relationship to the original assignee as the basis for either requiring or not requiring some form of “compulsory” license in the even that a patent is not being worked.
In this type of arrangement, if a patented invention is not being worked, then:
Steve: the unconstitutional idea of trying to make a legal distinction between different types of patent-owning entities
There are already thousands of rules and laws that make distinctions between “different types of patent-owning entities”.
How in the world would this ge neral concept be deemed “unconstitutional”? Do you believe there are no rational bases by which to differentiate between different behaviors by different entities who own patents?
Ned: define “troll.”
I think there’s plenty of definitions floating out there that at least some substantial fraction of the public would find acceptable, perhaps with some additional tweaks.
Let’s start with this one (seem like we’ve been through this before, several times, at least….): an entity that is not practicing the asserted patent and has no bona fide intention of practicing the asserted patent, wherein said entity’s primary use for patents or primary source of income is the ge neration of revenue by licensing or litigation of patents, and wherein the entity is not a public or private institution engaged in substantial scientific research or science education.
Some will complain that this definition unfairly “discriminates” against those wonderful patent agent/lawyer types who, seeking to “make some money off the Internets”, create shell companies and “innovate” computer-implemented jnk for the purpose of specifically targetting business and/or individuals (large and small) known to be more prone to settle with patent trolls. To the extent that’s true, that is a feature, my friends — not a bug.
In any event, it’s just a starting point. There’s really no reason that the class of actors (or actions) that society wishes to curtail here can’t be identified with constitutional clarity. It’s not as if we’re trying to prevent sincere realigimous people from discriminating against women or something abhorrently unconstitutional like that.
MM: “and wherein the entity is not a public or private institution engaged in substantial scientific research or science education.”
Big Co. and Big U package their patents to licensing entities that fit your definition of a troll.
Note also, under you formula, that failed startups and individual inventors are prevented from hiring licensing firms to help them if they do not retain any ownership interest. But startups need the ability to enforce patents on their failure in order to obtain financing in the first place.
See the problem? By trying to define troll in the way you did, you soon see that the definition begins to undermine the central purpose for the patent system – to fund innovative research.
I
“fund innovative research”
I don’t think “funding” is a “concern” for some people…. they just want “innovation” to causelessly occur… how? Who cares.
For them, the ends justify any means.
Ah, so you want Congress to pass laws that adversely affect the rights of others that you have labeled as disfavored, but not your rights.
Mr. Shah, I think the “targeted reform” that people are talking about means targeted at the abusive behaviors , not targeted at the people you think deserve fewer rights than you.
Thank you for your comment. I am not making a claim as to any particular entity deserving more or less rights. My proposal is a shift in value and patent assertion rights. Although the proposal refers to patent trolls as an example of a burden on the patent system, the proposal does not discriminate against any particular entity. The proposal is driven by a basic principle that an innovator should be given latitude in protecting his or her idea, while a patent acquirer who typically pays for the patent should also pay to prepare an infringement case fully before suing others. The additional hurdle for any patent acquirer applies regardless of whether the patent acquirer is a patent troll or an operating company. This measure necessitated by the abuse of the patent system has to be weighed against the benefits provided: maintaining the integrity of the patent system as well as promoting innovation, the main goal of the patent system.
Patent assertion rights are a basic component of the property that is to be freely alienable by design. Under this basic system, attaching strings to the “who” regardless of the “what” is de facto discrimination.
You are incorrect in your assertion that no “particular entity” is targeted, as you target an entire class of entities of a particular kind: the kind that would wish to engage in a basic and fundamental aspect of the system: those that wish to partake of the freely alieanable nature.
You appear to want to dress up this in righteousness, when it is not righteous. Your attempt at preserving integrity is akin to a doctor killing a patient while curing the patient, and saying, well, at least he is not suffering any more.
Alienability.
Look into it.
A critical factor to keep in mind (and absolutely forgotten by Mr. Shah) is the bedrock consideration (and avowed purpose) of the patent system of full alienability of property.
Proposals such as this that seek to place restrictions SOLELY on the “who” of ownership completely untethered to the “what” that is being owned need to align with – not contradict – foundational reasons for the system.
Not only is this unbridled discrimination, the attempt by Mr. Shaw here to paint this as an “improvement” ignores the fact that the inclusion of this possibility in te prior legislation efforts was one of the critical faults of that legislation.
This is an offensive fail from the start.
Beyond that, what about somebody who files for a patent in his own name and then later decides to start a business (and assigns the patent to it)?
Technically that new company is neither a) the “original applicant” nor b) an obliged assignee at the time of filing.
And provisions/exceptions regarding “active commercialization” don’t help either – as they leave out small startups who haven’t raised enough funds to launch.
This is analogous to quibbling over the definition of who a “criminal” is … pointing at this type and that type of person… all the while forgetting that commission of a crime is fundamentally essential.
Here the acts of some “so called” trolls are what the focus should be… not a class of entity.
Here the acts of some “so called” trolls are what the focus should be… not a class of entity.
The underlying concern is asymmetric warfare where the patent holder, by virtue of the fact that it is not in the business of producing anything substantial other than, possibly, more patents and patent lawsuits, has nothing to lose and everything to gain by asserting the jnk patent against anyone who might, for whatever reason, pay up.
This is done in the context of a judicial framework which, in its short-sighted mindless efforts to coddle patentees, rewards such behavior by making it more difficult to tank a jnk patent that has been licensed!
Given these facts, it’s impossible to shift the focus completely to the “acts” of the entities. The features of the entity being targeted are as important and relevant to any legislation intended to curb the perceived abuses in this context as it is in many other contexts.
Will somebody’s babies be thrown out with the bathwater? Maybe. That’s how it works sometimes. People whine about it for a while and then some time goes by and nobody can remember what all the fuss was about. One day some proposed “theory” represents “the complete evisceration of the patent system” and five years later the same shrieker admits the ruling was “banal.” [shrugs]
If the concern is truly “asymmetric warfare” then your beef is with corporate structure law.
“producing anything” is not a patent law requirement. Patents are purely a negative right – this is fundamental and basic stuff.
That [shrug] posture tells more about you than you might think.
If the concern is truly “asymmetric warfare”
Where are we? Are we on a patent blog or did we disappear into some weird wormhole where all we do is discuss whether we are “concerned” with abstract disembodied terms like “asymmetric warfare”?
In fact, there’s some instances where I’m fully in support of “asymmetric warfare”.
But I’m pretty sure this is a patent blog. And I’m sure that the advantages of asymmetric patent warfare under the current laws are benefitting people whose concerns in nearly every instance are very different from the concerns of, say, a minority group subject to massive government-sponsored discrimination simply because members of the minority group were born with red hair. And I’m also sure that the benefits to those people are vastly disproportionate to their product-free and primarily vaporous contributions to “technology”, and also disproportionate to the price that we all pay for their precious Total Freedom to Sue People for Using their Computer to Do Computer Stuff.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the vast majority of profitable businesses have no use for patents. That’s why the vast majority of profitable businesses don’t own them, or give a rip about them one way or another. Who wants to live in a country like that except for patent lawyers and these snivelling “small inventors” of computer-implemented b a l oney? Nobody does.
The people who never stop trying to expand patents into “everyday life”, so that everyone who ever engages in any kind of business (or who even offers information or advice to someone else) is forced to hire a patent attorney… they do this for purely selfish reasons or because they are simply bone ignorant and they are reciting a script. They might recite that script because they think they are better off reciting that script than not, or they might recite it because they just like irritating people “on the other side”. There are no exceptions to this basic rule that I’m aware of. If anyone knows of a person who fits the bill, please step up and identify him and her so we can confirm.
“Where are we? ”
LOL – the joke that is Malcolm keeps giving.
Um, do you really think that just because this is a patent blog, that legal concepts – such as those I post about at post 10 – should – or even can – be segregated?
You sir, are part of the problem in that regard.
I also notice that you do not seem to have any difficulty QQing about other aspects of law as you see fit (typically in the “grifters” and pro-Jane modes.
Go figure.
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again”
Mine’s better: get into a field and profession in which you can believe in the work product you (supposedly) produce.
“The underlying concern is asymmetric warfare where the patent holder, by virtue of the fact that it is not in the business of producing anything substantial other than, possibly, more patents and patent lawsuits, has nothing to lose and everything to gain by asserting the jnk patent against anyone who might, for whatever reason, pay up.”
Yes, poor Microsoft and Google are defenseless against the all mighty patent holder because the patent holder cleverly has no source of income, unless he wins his suit.
Freedoms just another word for nothin’ left to loose..
…and patent holders are free as a bird…
FREEBIRRRRRRDDDD!
An important point to remember is that “commercialization” is not even a requirement of the Quid Pro Quo.
An important point to remember is that “commercialization” is not even a requirement of the Quid Pro Quo.
An important point to remember is that we’re discussing changing the law to reflect policy concerns that, like 99.999% of our country’s laws, are not directly tied to this “quid pro quo.”
Thanks for playing, Billy.
Brush away the ad hominem, and there is nothing left of your comment Malcolm.
Are you saying that you want to change the foundational aspect of Quid Pro Quo?
Are you saying that you want to change the foundational aspect of Quid Pro Quo?
What’s the frequency, Kenneth???? What’s the frequency, Kenneth????
There are medications for you. Find them. Take them.
LOL – …and back to the “Kenneth” short script vap1d response…
@ttaboy Malcolm.
Well said
anon, I agree.
The definition of a troll cannot be based solely on one’s status.
E.g., women cannot be combat troops.
Regarding the example, exclusion from combat should be based on those who fail XYZ test or tests, where the test is gender neutral and seeks to determine whether the individual has the mental and physical requirement to be in combat. For example, if a person cannot see, let us say, at least 20/40 without glasses or contacts, that person represents a danger to himself and to his comrades if placed in a combat situation.
I would think a troll can be defined by conduct, and a court of law should first determine whether the particular individual/company/law firm is a troll based on a hearing and proof.
Probably create a whole new business of creating corporations per patent and then you sell the corporation with the patent. Probably could do that fairly cheaply. Delaware would love it.
Wyoming and some other states have a thing called a Series LLC just for this purpose. Well, their purpose is to help drilling and construction businesses operate each site independently without shared liability, but it uses the same structure.
“…bedrock consideration (and avowed purpose) of the patent system of full alienability of property”
Srsly?
LOL.
Bed.
Rock.
Riiight.
Your moniker is chosen poorly.
There is no argument in your post.
Good post anon. Exactly right.
Why don’t we have special legislation that only applies to trolls. Such legislation should not run afoul of the requirements for equal protection and due process.
Now, define “troll.”
while you are at it, define “abstract”
Sure, Les:
O’REILLY ET AL. v. MORSE ET AL., 56 U.S. 62, 14 L. Ed. 601, 1853 U.S. L.E.X.I.S. 273 (1853): “The provisions of the acts of Congress in relation to patents may be summed up in a few words.
Whoever discovers that a certain useful result will be produced, in any art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, by the use of certain means, is entitled to a patent for it; provided he specifies the means he uses in a manner so full and exact, that any one skilled in the science to which it appertains, can, by using the means he specifies, without any addition to, or subtraction from them, produce precisely the result he describes. And if this cannot be done by the means he describes, the patent is void. And if it can be done, then the patent confers on him the exclusive right to use the means he specifies to produce the result or effect he describes, and nothing more. And it makes no difference, in this respect, whether the effect is produced by chemical agency or combination; or by the application of discoveries or principles in natural philosophy known or unknown before his invention; or by machinery acting altogether upon mechanical principles. In either case he must describe the manner and process as above mentioned, and the end it accomplishes. And any one may lawfully accomplish the same end without infringing the patent, if he uses means substantially different from those described.
Indeed, if the eighth claim of the patentee can be maintained, there was no necessity for any specification, further than to say that he had discovered that, by using the motive power of electro-magnetism, he could print intelligible characters at any distance. We presume it will be admitted on all hands, that no patent could have issued on such a specification. Yet this claim can derive no aid from the specification filed. It is outside of it, and the patentee claims beyond it. And if it stands, it must stand simply on the ground that the broad terms above-mentioned were a sufficient description, and entitled him to a patent in terms equally broad. In our judgment the act of Congress cannot be so construed.”
Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co., 160 F. 467 (2d Cir. 1908): “A system of transacting business, disconnected from the means for carrying out the system is not, within the most liberal interpretation of the term, an “art,” and, unless the means used are novel and disclose invention, such system is not patentable.”
From these two cases, if a claim does not claim a patentable invention within matter that is eligible, it is abstract.
“From these two cases, if a claim does not claim a patentable invention within matter that is eligible, it is abstract.”
Gee, all this time I though that if a claim does not claim a patentable invention within matter that is eligible, it is obvious.
Thanks Ned! You gave me the definition I have been craving: “abstract” means “obvious”! This is a hoot.
It seems that you want to say that the matter must be one of the statutory categories, but you seem hesitant to actually make a clear stand.
Odd as well, that you select tow pre-1952 cases… 😉
Straight up (and serious) question: do you understand the difference between patent eligible and patentable?
First of all, you were replying to Fish Sticks, not me.
Second of all, Claims are part of the specification.
Third of all, Claims recite a fingerprint that identifies copies of the invention, Claims do not themselves teach how to make an use the invention.
So, had claim 8 ever been made or used before? Was the subject matter of claim 8 obvious?
If not, the claim was valid, the court was wrong (as your comments on Bilski would indicate, courts can be and often are wrong). Pay the man. –… …–
Wow. This is the best the head of IP dev of a successful, well-known and respected company can come up with?
Really?
You don’t think the unconstitutional idea of trying to make a legal distinction between different types of patent-owning entities wasn’t already fought over in the Senate?
… and it is intellectually dishonest for anyone to use and rely on the derogatory term “troll” … without concurrently providing their definition of “troll.”
Nothing here a 2L couldn’t have come up with.
Back to the drawing board, Mr. Shah.
Steve, I fully agree with your post. Defining a troll is the core issue.
Shouldn’t the focus be on defining actions which are abusive or in bad faith and finding ways to restrict those actions and not on defining “trolls” i.e. persecuting an entire category of entities grouped by association just because some entities within that conceptual grouping have engaged in abusive actions?
Just my 2 cents.
Not only is your point a good one Anon2, but a more fundamental view is in order.
If the problem is “visibility through corporate structure” – then ALL corporate formation laws need to be addressed.
If the problem is “cost of litigation” -then ALL cost-related aspect of litigation need to be addressed.
A critical problem with the very attempt to define the problem is the ASSumption that this is merely a patent problem.
It is not.
Corporate behavior that is criticized with patents exists for other assets as well. Court costs are “uncontrolled” in all forms of litigation and not just patent litigation.
Of course, once the proper perspective is gained, items such as foreseen “unforeseen” consequences can be discussed as well. For example, if the costs of litigation are “controlled” (read that as made cheaper or “more reasonable”), then the sheer number of litigations will expand – and perhaps greatly so.
To listen to those who think all of this is a “scourge” is to merely (and blindly) allow the flea on the tail of the dog to wag the dog.
If the problem is “visibility through corporate structure” – then ALL corporate formation laws need to be addressed. If the problem is “cost of litigation” -then ALL cost-related aspect of litigation need to be addressed.
And “we” need to address them all in every context simultaneously because …. Billy says so.
LOL.
Focus son – focus.
Eh, defining trolls is difficult because it is not a monolithic group and it is an ad hoc insult.
The problem isnt even one group of defendants. Sometimes it is indefinite claims plus strict liability causing the problem, sometimes it is overly broad claims that should not have been issued, and sometimes its just a popular, loud, guy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
Ask yourself: who coined the term “Patent Troll?”
Ask yourself: why did they coin the term?
Hint: Big Corp – and not for the benefit of the public.
Think about it.
I don’t even know why that is relevant. Also, its nonresponsive to my comment. Which is that there are several classes of “Patent trolls” and several classes of “Victims”, which is the nature of ad hoc reasoning.
The “Trolls” are sometimes PAEs, sometimes solo inventors, sometimes big corporations, etc.
Similarly the “Victims” are sometimes unsophisticated people who aren’t even aware they are using patented tech (end users, cough cough), sometimes are businesses legitimately being victimized by vague/bad patents, and sometimes just whiny loudmouths who want to do what they want to do.
Its a meaningless term, just like “Judicial Activism”, “Patent Troll” is just a patentee that is suing me!
The relevance of the term’s [creation] is shown in its use then – and now.
Open your eyes. Merely mouthing “I don’t know” won’t help you understand.
Exactly. I have in the past represented many individual inventors. How most of them could commercialise their invention without being labelled a troll is a problem. Unless you are said Big Corp, who would regard that as a feature. Certainly there are those who use useless patents to extract money, but if large corporate patent infringers can have everyone else labelled as trolls and, for example, made to comply with tougher pleading requirements, then of course they will do it, to the detriment of small inventors and the like.
Bingo.
You don’t think the unconstitutional idea of trying to make a legal distinction between different types of patent-owning entities wasn’t already fought over in the Senate?
OK, so why is it an “unconstitutional” idea?
Steve, thanks for your comments. To be clear, I am in support of the Innovation Act applying across the board to all patent owners. However, there is resistance from the Pharma and Biotech industries which object to adding hurdles in asserting their patents. While I believe that the additional hurdles for asserting patents is beneficial for the patent system as a whole, I cannot fault anyone for wanting to retain the maximum rights for protecting their own innovations. My proposal is a compromise between biotech/pharma industry interests and high-tech industry interests.
I do not provide an explicit definition of a troll because my proposal does not rely on such a definition. The proposal adds a cost to purchasing and asserting patents – the cost of preparing a case before using a purchased patent to sue others. This proposal would equally apply to any entity that acquires a patent – troll or operating company. I do not see any constitutional law issues.
VS This re-structuring of patent value is in-line with the true goals of the patent system, i.e., the promotion of innovation.
Note that the Consitution suggests that the goal of the patent system is to promote “progress” in the “Useful Arts”, not for promoting mere “innovation”. The standard dictionary definition of “innovation” is “the act or process of introducing new ideas, devices, or methods.” There are an infinite number of “new” ideas that humans come up with on a daily basis that do not represent “progress in the Useful Arts” in the sense that most people would understand that phrase. Patents are not necessary to promote such “innovation”, nor does the public benefit when the system begins to grant entitlements for such “innovations.” In part, that’s because every patent system has limited time to spend evaluating and enforcing the entitlements that are granted. When patenting “everything under the sun” without meaningful limitations is encouraged, then we can rest assured that someone with the time and money to spare will attempt to patent “everything under the sun” and then demand to be rewarded for filing that paperwork.
As for the specifics of VS’s proposal, I think the same heightened pleading requirements should apply to all patentees. As for this:
other patent rights, damages, and requirements for patents would depend on whether or not the current patent owner is (a) the original Applicant /an assignee that the original Applicant is obligated to assign to at time of filing or (b) a third party that acquired the patent. In case of legitimate business spin-offs (that are not primarily a patent sale), the business spin-off or acquiring company would hold the same rights as the original Applicant
… well, the devil is in the details, as they say.
Ultimately, if we continue to allow patents to be granted on “new” methods of protecting information or information processing where the “inventor” has done nothing except (1) describe a new functionality for an old information-processing machine or system or (2) describe some new information that is useful in a particular field, then the patent system is going to continue its downhill slide into the muck. The reasons for that are obvious, as is the predictability of the shrill, mindless response from those who are already invested in that muck. The solution to this problem, too, is incredibly obvious.
>Note that the Consitution suggests that the goal of the patent system is to >promote “progress” in the “Useful Arts”, not for promoting >mere “innovation”.
This is belly laughing stuff. “Mere innovation.” Here we go with the flash of genius and the model of inventions from Disney where a single person makes a giant step forward with no help from anyone and without building on anything.
>Along with many other ignorant people suffering from severe >Patentophilia you seem to have trouble distinguishing between a test >that requires an extreme level of insight and a test that eliminates a >low level of insight.
Or I can spot a flash of genius argument a mile away.
>“fundamentalists raping and killing people in Iraq.”
You are like them in that you are intolerant and don’t care about the law.
You are like them in that you are intolerant
Oh, I see. You compared critics of the patent system to “rapists and killers” because you’re a super tolerant hippie and you wanted to show everybody the power of pure love.
[you] don’t care about the law.
I wouldn’t be commenting here if I didn’t care about the law. Seriously, man: why not just apologize and we can all move on until you stick your foot in your mouth again in two months?
Not critics of the patent system. People like you.
A fine example of false logic.
Looks like my shadow is back again under a new (and not so terribly creative) name.
Hey, where are my funny gifs?
How is your search for a modern advance country that has chucked all of their IP laws?
No gif(t)s for you, Jenny.
Come now shadow, the least you can do is provide some amusement.
“I wouldn’t be commenting here if I didn’t care about the law”
A fine example of false logic.
You have shown that you don’t care at all for the Rule of Law.
What you DO care about is your own little curse-ade. Your commenting does not serve the law. It serves your brand of “policy”/opinion, and that is all it serves.
You have shown that you don’t care at all for the Rule of Law.
Oh boy, here come’s Billy again with his lawlier-than-thou shtick. Give it a rest, you toxic pr ick.
Your commenting … serves your brand of “policy”/opinion
Aren’t we lucky that Billy is so objective?
Golly, we’re so lucky.
Another empty post Malcolm.
@ttaboy.
MM, the basic patent statute, 101, a statute that has been in force with essentially the same language since 1793, provides that patentable inventions are new or improved, and useful, processes, machines, manufactures and/or compositions. Information, ideas, printed matter, music, business methods including methods that determine a new or improved price, risk, profit and the like, are clearly not statutory in the sense they are neither any one of the four classes. We don’t have to get into what “useful arts” is at its outer limits. Congress has set the limits in the basic patent statute.
As we learned in Prometheus, combining ineligible subject matter with old, conventional, but eligible subject matter does not produce an eligible invention.
Any claim who eligibility depends upon the inclusion in the claim of a generic computer or the equivalent is now suspect post Alice.
Since most trolls assert information-processing type patents, I think Alice goes a long way to solving the troll problem. We should let sleeping dogs lie while the courts deal with this new Supreme Court case.
Please approve my comment made at 3:52 pm.
Your recreation of history and new spin remains seriously flawed.