- Bush Administration Opposes Aspects of Patent Reform: [LINK] (But will support an amended version)
- Additional Senate Comments on Patent Reform: [LINK (836 KB)]
- Senator Kyl: Congress should eliminate business method patents because they create monopoly costs without any new beneficial technology.
- Senators Spector & Brownback: The S.1145 “remains a work in progress;” the damage apportionment language would create uncertainity and litigation — especially determining an invention’s “specific contribution over the prior art.”
- Senators Feingold and Coburn — If the bill is passed without serious amendment “Patents will be devalued and many inventors will opt for trade secrecy instead, undermining the Framers’ intent to promote disclosure and public benefit through a strong patent system.”
- General Remarks from a minority of Judiciary Committee members: “Primum non nocere is Latin phrase that means `First, do no harm.’ … In our opinion, the intervention the bill proposes will create real and certain damage to our patent system and the ability of America’s inventors and innovation industries to protect their intellectual property rights.”
kk
Actually, my point is that manipulation of data and user-interface are the stuff of all software patents. An attack on business method patents = attack on software. I don’t see how you can draw a line to outlaw business method patents without affeccting software patents. Nuance got lost in the sarcasm
kk
Actually, my point is that manipulation of data and user-interface are the stuff of all software patents. An attack on business method patents = attack on software. I don’t see how you can draw a line to outlaw business method patents without affeccting software patents. Nuance got lost in the sarcasm
meanwhile … $1.5 mil per CD in copyright infringement … CONTACT YOUR SENATORS!
when technology (embodied in the patent) gets “manufactured” or “provided as a service” where did the patented technology go? how is the patent not a business method — and no, it’s not like porn … people do not buy patents (they do buy porn), they buy goods and services (like porn, on which so many technologies provided a great test bed — lkiterally) …
if you do away with “business method patents” or “software patents” (JPEG – PNG in response — FAT no comment!), you should have a parallel with doing away with business methods (such as tax evasion via patented technology) and software (such as this html text editor im using) — and we can all rely on advertising to support every business model!
ooooh, maybe sing your specification and claims onto a CD and distribute the material as a copyrighted sound recording?
makes you wonder who’s really pushing the agenda … a number of the same sponsors of the patent reform act … well golly!
H.R. 4279 introduced in Congress; would provide for $1.5 million damages for a single CD from each pirate.
Permalink: link to CopyrightReform.us
Posted by BIA | Posted in: External Articles | December 2007
“Seems as if the DOJ is not particularly happy about HR 4729, the ‘Copyright Czar’ bill. The Deputy AG told Congress that the current structure works quite effectively. ‘Panel members also expressed concern over Section 104 of the bill, which would allow a copyright owner to collect statutory damages for each copyrighted work that is stolen. Detractors fear that this provision could result in protracted lawsuits … Section 104, however, would penalize criminals on a per-song basis, so if someone pirated a motion picture soundtrack that had songs from 12 different artists, the pirate would be charged with 12 separate offenses and be subject to exorbitant fees.’”
“… and valuable enough for the alleged infringer to vigorously defend, then there MUST be some beneficial technology in there somewhere!”
Hmmm, I’m not sure Kyl is the only one lost in that paper bag. If I vigorously defend against a frivolous patent infringement lawsuit then I’m acknowledging that there’s “beneficial technology” in the patent? I don’t see how that follows.
“As for the use of the term “business methods” I think it’s just a useful shorthand for a complex topic. We all know what it means.”
Kind of like pornography. We know it when we see it, right?
Kyl’s comments are ridiculous on their face. If something is valuable enough to spend money to obtain a patent on, and valuable enough that others are (possibly) using it, and valuable enough to litigate to determine if others are actually using it, and valuable enough for the alleged infringer to vigorously defend, then there MUST be some beneficial technology in there somewhere!
I don’t think Kyl could reason his way out of a paper bag if you left the top open.
As for the use of the term “business methods” I think it’s just a useful shorthand for a complex topic. We all know what it means.
Dave
Does anyone know the positions of Obama, Clinton and McCain on S. 1145? Seems like senators running for president would have a position on this important piece of legislation, but I have not been able to find anything.
Examiners…
Budge
I agree that “business methods” as a category is a bit of a smoke screen. Even if I was knowingly writing an application for a business method, it would never have the words “business method” close to each other – and I’ve written many.
I tend to disagree a little on what it seems like you’re saying as to whether claims to manipulation of user interfaces and manipulation of data should be out of bounds from a subject matter standpoint. I have written many claims to these types of inventions.
What Examiner’s should do however in these types of cases is determine whether the software development environment documentation allowed for the kinds of manipulation that was claimed. In other words, if someone tries to patent a software radio button or something that they “developed” out of the can, then the software documentation should act as anticipatory. IMHO.
Regarding KSR business method rejections: As is the case in practice, sometimes the Examiner’s analysis just does not make it into the “proposed rejection”. Rather, the rejections merely recite language from KSR with few “required” factual statements on the record.
Specifically, the first example at page 3 of the PDF version includes some “factual” findings statements in italics, none of which make it into the “statement of rejection” on page 4. It would be helpful in responding to the rejection to have a couple lines at least of the factual findings. The fingerprint example is better. However, the example on page 11-12 has a nice analysis of the Graham factors, but little of the analysis is reflected in the proposed rejection.
Would it be so hard to include some of these “One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized…” or “Ref x could also be used to support the concept of…” statements in the rejection? At least then one could understand how the Examiner is reading and applying the reference and what the Examiner interprets the knowledge of one of ordinary skill to be, and perhaps then marshal some support in opposition.
Some of these examples are more indicative of the problem, and that they are being used to train examiners is a scarey prospect at best.
…what about a thousand patent monkeys on a thousand licensed versions of Microsoft Word?
How disappointing that we have the patent bar openly discuss “Business Method Patents” as if the Title of the applications have “Method for doing business…” No one seems to consider that the “business method” farce was a hail-mary Section 101 argument popularized in the Sate-Street litigation. Presentation of user-interface, manipulation and communication of data–these are the primary ingredients of business method patents. They are also the ingredients for software and Internet patents. Not “business” or “money”, but data and what it represents. You can’t draw a line saying this is “business method” and that’s not. Most cases, the distinction can’t be made, unless a patent monkey wrote the application.
As if what a politician says about what they object to in a bill bears any resemblance to why they won’t support its passage. The simple fact is, its not going to pass. Huzzah!
reply to senator Kyl Business method patents should remain patentable because they are the foundation of small business.Without incentives the economy cant grow and we wont prosper. These patents restrict only the portion of the economy that their invention created. Their for they are not a monopoly they are the financial reward for the acomplishment of creation. They may or may not benifit techniology but that is not the only consideration.
Re the USPTO KSR guidelines for business method obviousness, I thought they did a fairly good job. I think it would also be helpful to examiners if a few examples of an improper 103 rejection were made. There will be a lot of temptation on the part of examiners to make unsupported assertions of fact such as “There are a finite number of ways to conduct a survey”.
The Bush Administration letter opposes primarily the damage apportionment provision only of S. 1145. It still pretty much supports all other provisions including applicant quality submissions (the new “Documents of Doom”, fee-setting authority for USPTO (a nauseating thought), post-grant opposition procedures (palatable, if at all, if there is one limited period to initiate), inequitable conduct reform (which still doesn’t go far enough to remove this “scourge” and “plague”), etc. Put differently, it appears likely that President Bush would sign S. 1145 (and companion H.R. 1098 if modified as the letter suggests S. 1145 be modified) if the damage apportionment provision were modified with all the other ugliness of S. 1145/H.R. 1098. Not much hope from the Bush Administration to derail this package of nonsense in S. 1145/H.R. 1098
According to some, S1145 is a smackdown. Personally, I’m not sure how it’s a smackdown, assuming it could even pass, but I’m not as prescient as some who post here.
Well, at least somebody’s listening.
Comments are closed.