Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 310: On TV

  • PatentLawPic870New on NBC: “Kindreds,” created by Emmy Award winner David E. Kelley (“Boston Legal,” “The Practice,” “L.A. Law”), follows a curmudgeonly ex-patent lawyer and his group of misfit associates as their lives come together to form an unconventional kind of law practice. The series is from Warner Bros. Television and David E. Kelley Productions. Kelley is the writer and executive producer.
  • New on Fox: Although it has nothing to do with patent law, Sons of Tucson was written by my college roommate.
  • Last night on PBS: Copyright Criminals. I have the DVD version and will write a review once I watch it. [LINK]
  • The Shark Tank: For those who have not seen it, the Shark Tank is pretty funny. The investors clearly see the importance of intellectually property rights but the nuances are almost always lost (perhaps in the editing process). [Link]
  • Patent Juries: Joe Mullin has a great article at IPL&B on the jury verdict in the i4i v. Microsoft case. [Link]
  • Dr. Noonan on Gene Patents and the L.A.Times: [I]n an editorial entitled “Genes and patents,” the L.A. Times joined its East Coast cousin in taking an inaccurate and irrational position on an important question: patents on diagnostic methods involving genetic information. [Link]

81 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 310: On TV

  1. 80

    “Kind of like how you underestimate the number of individuals that agree with (at least some) of his opinions.”

    Hey, if Jerry Springer can find an audience full of idi0ts, I’m sure Mooney can too. Its just that idi0ts are, or at least should be, in the minority on a patent related site.

    Mooney is proof however that there is at least one smelly baboon in every crowd.

  2. 77

    Subject: THE DARWIN AWARDS

    > > > Yes, it’s that magical time of year again when the Darwin Awards
    are bestowed, honoring the least evolved among us.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Here is the glorious winner:
    > > >
    > > > 1. When his 38 caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended
    victim during a hold-up in Long Beach , California would-be robber
    James Elliot did something that can only inspire wonder. He peered down
    the barrel and tried the trigger again. This time it worked.

    > > > And now, the honorable mentions:
    > > >
    > > > 2. The chef at a hotel in Switzerland lost a finger in a meat
    cutting machine and after a little shopping around, submitted a claim to
    his insurance company. The company expecting negligence sent out one of
    its men to have a look for himself. He tried the machine and he also
    lost a finger.. The chef’s claim was approved.
    > > >
    > > > 3. A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his
    car during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his vehicle to find a
    woman had taken the space. Understandably, he shot her.
    > > >
    > > > 4. After stopping for drinks at an illegal bar, a Zimbabwean bus
    driver found that the 20 mental patients he was supposed to be
    transporting from Harare to Bulawayo had escaped. Not wanting to admit
    his incompetence, the driver went to a nearby bus stop and offered
    everyone waiting there a free ride. He then delivered the passengers to
    the mental hospital, telling the staff that the patients were very
    excitable and prone to bizarre fantasies.. The deception wasn’t
    discovered for 3 days.
    > > >
    > > > 5. An American teenager was in the hospital recovering from
    serious head wounds received from an oncoming train. When asked how he
    received the injuries, the lad told police that he was simply trying to
    see how close he could get his head to a moving train before he was hit.
    > > >
    > > > 6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the
    > > > counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash
    > > > drawer, the man pulled a gun and asked for all the cash in the
    > > > register, which the clerk promptly provided. The man took the cash
    > > > from the clerk and fled, leaving the $20 bill on the counter. The
    > > > total amount of cash he got from the drawer… $15. [If someone
    > > > points a gun at you and gives you money, is a crime committed?]
    > > >
    > > > 7. Seems an Arkansas guy wanted some beer pretty badly.. He
    decided that he’d just throw a cinder block through a liquor store
    window, grab some booze, and run. So he lifted the cinder block and
    heaved it over his head at the window. The cinder block bounced back and
    hit the would-be thief on the head, knocking him unconscious. The liquor
    store window was made of Plexiglas. The whole event was caught on
    videotape.
    > > >
    > > > 8. As a female shopper exited a New York convenience store, a man
    grabbed her purse and ran. The clerk called 911 immediately, and the
    woman was able to give them a detailed description of the snatcher.
    Within minutes, the police apprehended the snatcher. They put him in the
    car and drove back to the store. The thief was then taken out of the car
    and told to stand there for a positive ID. To which he replied, “Yes,
    officer, that’s her. That’s the lady I stole the purse from.”
    > > >
    > > > 9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into
    > > > a Burger King in Ypsilanti , Michigan at 5 A.M., flashed a gun,
    > > > and demanded cash. The clerk turned him down because he said he
    > > > couldn’t open the cash register without a food order. When the man
    > > > ordered onion rings, the clerk said they weren’t available for
    > > > breakfast… The man, frustrated, walked away. [*A 5-STAR
    > > > STUPIDITY AWARD WINNER]
    > > >
    > > > 10. When a man attempted to siphon gasoline from a motor home
    parked on a Seattle street, he got much more than he bargained for..
    Police arrived at the scene to find a very sick man curled up next to a
    motor home near spilled sewage. A police spokesman said that the man
    admitted to trying to steal gasoline, but he plugged his siphon hose
    into the motor home’s sewage tank by mistake. The owner of the vehicle
    declined to press charges saying that it was the best laugh he’d ever
    had.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > In the interest of bettering mankind, please share these with
    friends and family….unless of course one of these individuals by
    chance is a distant relative or long lost friend. In that case, be glad
    they are distant and hope they remain lost.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > *** Remember…. They walk among us!!!***

  3. 75

    “Mooney underestimates the number of different individuals who find his baboon antics tiresome.”

    Kind of like how you underestimate the number of individuals that agree with (at least some) of his opinions.

  4. 74

    Malcolm’s translation:

    I post what the f’n I feel like it. I don’t have to explain myself – you have to guess my reasons or even what I mean. No one can complain except me. The judges are only ruining the country when they strengthen patent rights. My chin is shiny and clean – I’m ready for more.

  5. 73

    Mooney underestimates the number of different individuals who find his baboon antics tiresome.

    I guess I could try to salute the flag and whine about recent Office Actions at a frequency that would earn your respect. But I don’t think the comments section needs more patent teabaggers.

    I tell you what: next time there is juicy Federal Circuit decision, try posting something more substantive than “These judges are destroying our country,” and I won’t take a shot at your mouthbreathing inanity. Likewise, next time I characterize a patent claim as “a piece of crap,” try explaining why it isn’t a piece of crap. It would be a good exercise for you because, if you’ve been paying any attention, when I note that a claim is crappy I always have a good reason for doing so. It may not be obvious to you at first glance but that’s not my problem. It’s yours.

  6. 72

    “I just react…”

    Like I said: angry skulking baboon…

    QED

    Mooney underestimates the number of different individuals who find his baboon antics tiresome.

  7. 70

    “I just react to the stains you teabaggers leave here.”
    – As Mooney wipes chin clean.

  8. 69

    Why don’t you just throw some of your baboon dung at us?

    By “us” I assume you mean you and your sockpuppets “Huh?”, “Preacher”, “formerly known as”, “Mooney=Progress”, and “SayCaptain”.

    The answer is I don’t throw baboon dung. I just react to the stains you teabaggers leave here. Isn’t there enough room at IP Watchdog for all of you?

  9. 67

    “Mocking a claim to a helmet comprising a non-functional piece of rubber is anti-American.”

    /patent teabagger off

  10. 65

    “”1. A helmet bearing a sculptured ornament, comprising:

    “a helmet having a sculptured ornament wherein said sculptured ornament is formed of a elastomeric material having a smooth underside for conforming to the outer contour of said helmet,””

    Ooooo Je sus, now I see why the guy way above was saying “a helmet comprising… a helmet”

    AHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

    that’s hilarious.

    Still, I’ll decline to comment on the validity of this issued patentlololololz!

  11. 63

    “It’s really not as hard as you think.”

    If you think every validity and obviousness related analysis is so easy and self evident, then why aren’t you the king of patent law Mooney, instead of just an angry skulking baboon on a blog?

  12. 62

    Mooney sees himself as “progressive” if by progressive you mean Birkenstocks and mud huts, then, yes.

  13. 61

    Malcolm Mooney: Posting under yet another alias obsessed with airline bathrooms wrote: Regarding your Soyer dough dude, Sawyer Sparks, I didn’t see the show,…”

    Exactly. I did see the show and not only that I have kept up to date with what’s happening and been in email contact with the inventor. You on the other hand are already trying to impugn his credibility and integrity while you have admitted to not knowing jack *%$ thing about his invention, and business other than what you read on a chat board.

    The fact is this young inventor did start out with a provisional as do most little guys. And he has filed for a regular patent application that is non published, which is a smart idea with all the big corps and anti patent snakes like you out there trying to use every dirty trick in the book to sabotage his dream.

    His invention is a process ( recipe) and if people like you Mooney had your way processes, especially recipes would no longer be eligible for patent examination.

    As fas as Bilski is concerned, if the law is left alone as it stands, most processes would easily pass the MOT test.

    But with the PTO increasingly moving the bar as to what is an eligible machine and what qualifies as pre, post and extra solution activity, the reality is all business methods, processses and software will soon be DOA. In effect rendering the process category of the statute, impotent.

    And who are you to say what his motives are? I believe in this young mans dream to create jobs and would trust his word over some anonymous hack that can’t even consistently post under one alias .

  14. 60

    Ned: “It [the ACLU] more often attacks Christians, the family and property. I can give you example after example.

    [eye roll]

    The best cure for a persecution complex is education, Ned. But I would avoid Conservapedia.

  15. 59

    “It’s really not as hard as you think.”

    Spoken truly like somebody who’s never written an opinion.

  16. 58

    Feel free to order that file history and then post your invalidity analysis for all to see, Malcolm.

    You’ve been pushing that angle for years, Caveman. It’s really not as hard as you think. Sad that you don’t have the brains to figure it out.

  17. 57

    I’ll comment on the validity of claim 1:

    “1. A helmet bearing a sculptured ornament, comprising:

    “a helmet having a sculptured ornament wherein said sculptured ornament is formed of a elastomeric material having a smooth underside for conforming to the outer contour of said helmet,”

    * picking up from the earlier comments, a sticker seems to be correct. Stickers can take various sculpted shapes. Stickers can be formed of “elastomeric” materials (rubber). Example (from a google search):
    link to strapya-world.com

    Stickers have a smooth underside.

    Especially on a smooth surface, stickers conform to the outer contour.

    “wherein said sculptured ornament is permanently adhered to said helmet”

    * I read “permanently adhered” to mean adhered and not easily seperable. Stickers!

    “wherein said sculptured ornament is flexible and the underlying surface of the sculptured ornament conforms to the surface of the helmet.”
    * A non-limitation that repeats the first one above. Stickers are flexible. The underlying surface can conform to a helmet.

    What am I missing?

  18. 56

    “That’s probably because you lack the necessary skills.”

    Feel free to order that file history and then post your invalidity analysis for all to see, Malcolm.

  19. 54

    Regarding your Soyer dough dude, Sawyer Sparks, I didn’t see the show, but based upon reading the reviews of the show, Sparks’ “patent” is a provisional application, which as you’re well aware has no claims nor has been examined, which makes you wonder whether Play-doh really contacted him “several” times to offer $500K for the “rights” guaranteed by the provisional. Also, the part about him refusing the $500K because he wants to create jobs in his hometown doesn’t ring true when he gave the shark tank guys, who have no interest in creating jobs in his hometown and are apparently interested in setting up a licensing deal with Play-doh, a controlling interest in his company for $300K. And, as usual, you’re just making up examples as to why Bilski is the end of the world. There are no claims in a provisional, therefore it is impossible for Bilski to tank it. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Bilski would have any effect on this man’s non-provisional application if it has been filed, and even if he did try to claim a method of making soyer dough, seeing as the case would be pending, it would be a trivial matter to put the claim in accordance with Bilski. In short, give me a freaking break. Stop implying that Bilski is affecting tangible inventions like this one just because it prevents you from reserving your airplane restroom.

  20. 53

    “It [the ACLU] more often attacks Christians, the family and property. I can give you example after example.”

    Ned, please provide a couple of examples.

  21. 52

    “Crappy claims and bad examination are two.sides.of.the.same.coin.baby.”

    and appearntly per Malcolm, that coin is the total responsibility of the evil users of the patent system and the helpless, innocent examining corp and its straight-shooting upright management have absolutely no culpability in the present state of affairs.

  22. 51

    A plurality of thresholding units wrote: Actual Inventor: None of the venture capital situations you’ve mentioned so far have any risk of being affected by the Bilski decision.

    I do believe Bilski would KO SoyerDough. And if the PTO keeps going rogue and making up its own 101 law, the helmet guy may even be in jeopardy.

  23. 50

    “The big corporations, in contrast, for their own selfish reasons, are actively working to undermine the patent system as well — all of which goes to show that the opponents of a strong patent system are many and for different reasons.”

    Well now it is quite a motley crew, this unlikely alliance of anti patent people, whom would normally be at each others throats.

    We have the pro socialist aligning themselves with big corp capitalist and government sector bureaucrats, all to stop small corps from starting up and providing more jobs for the American people.

  24. 49

    Red Dog: AI, the patent for the helmet art is 6,101,636.

    Thanks Red Dog. I admire this inventor and all he has been able to do thus far in realizing the American Dream. God bless him and God Bless America.

  25. 48

    Malcolm, the ACLU has a lofty charter, but was founded and operated by the far left. Throughout its history, its enforcement activities have largely been selective. At times it has defended Nazis, but those are rare occasions. It more often attacks Christians, the family and property. I can give you example after example.

    Only the naive would believe the ACLU has adopted its bizarre positions through ignorance.

    I provide no comment on the so-called teabaggers except to again note they have nothing to do with big corporations. I didn’t pay enough attention to them to know what they stood for to comment further.

    The big corporations, in contrast, for their own selfish reasons, are actively working to undermine the patent system as well — all of which goes to show that the opponents of a strong patent system are many and for different reasons.

    As to your last comment, I will agree with you to the extent that some on the so-called right are illogical and inconsistent in their thinking. Being in favor of individual freedom and being against individual freedom at the same time is pathetic.

  26. 47

    Dear Ned,

    The ACLU has consistently defended the freedom of expression of bigots, neo-Nazis, and script-reciting wingnuts like you so it can not be fairly characterized as a tool of the left. It’s hardly the ACLU’s fault that “the pillars of the old order” include the blatantly unconstitutional “pillars” of institutionalized racism and government-promoted religious indoctrination.

    But you must read your script, I suppose. Glenn Beck called and said he was moved to tears by your effort.

    With respect to the LA Times, it’s a joke of a paper (as recognized by Noonan) but only the most uninformed teabagger would characterize it as a tool of progressive interests. Like the ACLU, it simply is not.

    All that said, it is obvious from the ACLU’s briefs and from statements of organizations and individuals on the ACLU’s “side” that the ACLU is in way over its head when it comes to the patent law issues raised by these claims. Nobody likes to see such blatant and willful obfuscation (hence my reaction to your own comment).

    And I will close this comment as I have before by noting the bizarre tendency of wingnuts/teabaggers to fanatically celebrate both “individual freedom” *and* the strength of government grants to corporations of the right to prevent individuals from treating or diagnosing their own illnesses or the illnesses of their children in their own homes.

  27. 46

    I must say that I read Dr. Noonan’s critique of the LA Times editorial with growing dismay and anger. For those of you who have not yet read Dr. Noonan’s article, he provides a reasoned response to the Sunday LA Times editorial opposing patents on diagnostic methods involving genetic information. The LA Times opinion piece apparently was filled with lies, exaggerations, and irrationality. It appeared to accept without criticism the allegations of the ACLU and others that patenting human DNA is “wrong.”

    Since the French revolution, it has been a fundamental goal of the left to undermine and destroy the pillars of the old order. Any institution that supports the individual against the power of the state and provides the individual freedom is the enemy of the left. One of the most important pillars of civilization and the enemy of the totalitarian left is property. They seek to undermine and destroy the rights property wherever possible and whenever the opportunity appears. One has to understand the attack of the ACLU and LA Times in this context.

    Lies and mischaracterization are the staples of leftist argument. We should not be surprised that the ACLU and the LA Times would not fight fair. But it is good that Dr. Noonan not only pointed out that the left was lying, but why they were lying.

    Bravo, Dr. Noonan.

  28. 45

    “I have no idea whether the claim is valid or invalid. Don’t really care.”

    Precisely, same here. What we should all care about is the effect that people making statements like this guy’s partner did and then getting money because of it. It appears that the true effect that patents have in these types of situations is merely to con the gullible and uneducated.

  29. 44

    It has been my experience that “crappy” claims always have a way of being difficult to invalidate.

    That’s probably because you lack the necessary skills.

  30. 43

    “You DO know that examiners (or other PTO personnel) are not supposed to be commenting on the validity of issued patent? ”

    Where has anyone commented on the validity of an issued patent? Do point that out good sir.

  31. 42

    6,

    You DO know that examiners (or other PTO personnel) are not supposed to be commenting on the validity of issued patent? Right? If not, you do now, so if they get you for this you have been warned… Getting gigged for this won’t help you in getting hired by a law firm, either.

    MVS

  32. 40

    NAL,

    I have no idea whether the claim is valid or invalid. Don’t really care.

    It has been my experience that “crappy” claims always have a way of being difficult to invalidate.

    I don’t have clients like Malcolm that will simply accept my “opinion” of “Hey, don’t worry about the claim, it’s facially invalid.”

    BTW Malcolm, how do you make any money issuing opinions like that? What do you charge them for such rock solid legal advice?

  33. 39

    The post was directed at bad examination.

    Crappy claims and bad examination are two.sides.of.the.same.coin.baby.

  34. 38

    Malcom once again shows his examiner colors:
    “PatentlyO: where even the crappiest claim can always find some love.”

    Guess what Malcolm, NOTHING was said about the claim. Huh? may completely agree with you.

    But. that. was. not. the. point. of. the. post.

    The post was directed at bad examination. I know that in your world, there simply is no such thing. Even that does not excuse the focus and speed of your condemnation. At the very least you could have replied to the affect of mildly chiding the pitiful examiner who posted in his typical thoughtless manner, and instructed your brother in arms.

  35. 37

    Malcolm and 6,

    Feel free to order the file history and post your invalidity analysis for all to see.

    As 6 is ready to get down to it, he can do the heavy lifting. Malcolm you can supervise. Kind of like the relationship you two already have.

  36. 36

    “When his partner stated the patent was broad and strong enough to prevent anyone else from placing a 3 d design on any helmets the investors jumped at the chance to fund his start up!”

    Hey investors, over here! My patent is broad enough to prevent anyone from curing cancer!

    Look at ’em jump! Whooo boy! Jumpin’ investor time! Yow! Start me up! You make a grown man cry-ay-ay!

  37. 34

    Right. Like I said, typical examiner analysis.

    Posted by: Huh?

    PatentlyO: where even the crappiest claim can always find some love.

  38. 33

    “I hadn’t read the whole claim yet. Still haven’t.”

    Right. Like I said, typical examiner analysis.

  39. 32

    “So, when do we apply 103?”

    Not until after you’ve read the claim, which doesn’t recite elastomeric stickers.

  40. 31

    “Were the stickers formed of elastomeric material?”

    I hadn’t read the whole claim yet. Still haven’t. I simply “analyzed” what the guy quoted said.

    “When his partner stated the patent was broad and strong enough to prevent anyone else from placing a 3 d design on any helmets the investors jumped at the chance to fund his start up!”

    But now that we get down to it, are there stickers made of elastomeric material? I doubt he invented the elastomeric material sticker around the same date as this patent was filed. So, when do we apply 103?

  41. 29

    “I had a feeling that this patent would be begging for a court review should anyone care to do it.”

    Right. Because filing for a DJ of invalidity is really going to be worth it for this patent.

  42. 28

    “As it so happens, my dad has a helmet he’s had since the 70’s that has old stickers on it. They’re, GASP, 3d.”

    Were the stickers formed of elastomeric material?

    Thanks for the typical examiner analysis. We simply don’t get enough in the OA’s issued every day.

  43. 27

    6, you know there’s a requirement that “each and every element” be found right?

    The guy above is just pointing out the shoddy drafting at the beginning of the claim.

  44. 26

    “But, it is much more entertaining than watching a schmuck like me sit at a desk for 12 hours at a time typing and reading. It would be like the Truman Show. Your wife is watching. You walk by, “Is that guy STILL sitting at that desk? He was there when I left for work this morning and I’m heading to bed now?” Wife say, “Yep.” You say, “Has he moved? Is he alive?” She says, “He hasn’t moved, but he did type something a minute a go, so I think he’s okay.” You, “What a crappy show.””

    LOLOLOL

  45. 25

    “Man, claim 1 of that patent is horrible: “a helmet… comprising a helmet,” “permanently adhered?” Seriously. And if “permanently” doesn’t really mean “permanent,” how is it that this isn’t anticipated by like EVERY known helmet adornment since the invention of the motorcycle helmet. People have been adding novelty horns to helmets for forever.

    This is NOT a good example of a good invention.”

    I had a feeling that this patent would be begging for a court review should anyone care to do it.

    3d helmet adornment? Really broad claim? As it so happens, my dad has a helmet he’s had since the 70’s that has old stickers on it. They’re, GASP, 3d.

  46. 24

    Actual Inventor: None of the venture capital situations you’ve mentioned so far have any risk of being affected by the Bilski decision.

  47. 23

    Man, claim 1 of that patent is horrible: “a helmet… comprising a helmet,” “permanently adhered?” Seriously. And if “permanently” doesn’t really mean “permanent,” how is it that this isn’t anticipated by like EVERY known helmet adornment since the invention of the motorcycle helmet. People have been adding novelty horns to helmets for forever.

    This is NOT a good example of a good invention.

  48. 21

    Actual inventor, Indiana is an acceptable state. If I were the investor though, I would demand that the factory be in the south in right to work states.

    Otherwise, little Johnny may learn all about why people don’t locate factories in the US. And if he thinks the people in that town will be thankful for his efforts to provide them jobs :laughing:

  49. 20

    I’m sure Kindred will be just as real life as the upcoming Deep End.

    The sad part is that lay people will think that that is real life.

    But, it is much more entertaining than watching a schmuck like me sit at a desk for 12 hours at a time typing and reading. It would be like the Truman Show. Your wife is watching. You walk by, “Is that guy STILL sitting at that desk? He was there when I left for work this morning and I’m heading to bed now?” Wife say, “Yep.” You say, “Has he moved? Is he alive?” She says, “He hasn’t moved, but he did type something a minute a go, so I think he’s okay.” You, “What a crappy show.”

  50. 17

    Hagbard Celine: “Odds on “Made in China”?

    Interesting you should ask because on this same show, Shark Tank, last season one of the most popular inventors was a college kid from a small midwest town that invented an allergen free play dough. It is for kids that are allergic to wheat products. He calls it Soyerdough!

    He came up with the recipe right in his moms kitchen. Now as soon as the makers of PlayDoh heard about this innovative new product they tried to reproduce the trade secret recipe of course.

    But this kid was one smart cookie. He had gotten a patent on the process for making his Soyerdough!

    Well, when corporate giant Mattel found out about the patent they immediately dispatched their attorneys to buy the kid out and came to his house and offered him and his mom $500 000 for the patent itself.

    But this noble young inventor said no. You see his dream was to start a factory in this recession riddled small town and provide jobs for his community. He said, he knew if he sold out to Playdoh they would take the patent and have the products made in China, rather than build a factory in his small Indiana town.

    And thats why he came to Shark Tank, to ask the investors to put up the money to build a small factory that could employ 5000 people. One of the billionaire investors on the show jumped at the chance to own a piece of that patent and take a share of the market from PlayDoh, and young Soyer got his money and will make is dream come true.

    Let’s hope the Supremes do not unravel his dream and the economic engine that is America with their decisions in Bilski and other cases that will follow this year. Remember its entrepreneurs like Soyer that create 85% of all new jobs in America. And its strong patents that make it possible.

  51. 16

    David E. Kelly has mocked patent lawyers on his two most famous shows (Ally McBeal and Boston Legal), so I’m not surprised the patent lawyer character is 1) cranky and 2) retired. Gotta go with Fringe tonight.

  52. 13

    “This new business is going to need to hire employees to produce the helmets and contract with other businesses for supplies and services. And this is how we create jobs in America!”

    Odds on “Made in China”?

  53. 12

    Yet more proof that patent trials have no business being held before juries, let alone juries in ED Tex.

  54. 11

    I am glad you mentioned Shark Tank, which, since I am an “Actual Inventor” is a favorite of mine.
    Whenever some of the anti patent posters, and those with socialist agendas rant against business methods, algorithms and the like on this blog I often want to tell them to go watch Shark Tank! It’s a clear example of why we need strong patent laws for producing jobs and turning our economy around.

    Just last Friday a gentleman received $500,000 dollars in cash because he had a broad patent on the method for putting 3 dimensional designs on helmets. The products he presented on the show were motorcycle helmets for biker types. When his partner stated the patent was broad and strong enough to prevent anyone else from placing a 3 d design on any helmets the investors jumped at the chance to fund his start up!
    This new business is going to need to hire employees to produce the helmets and contract with other businesses for supplies and services.

    And this is how we create jobs in America! We lost 85,000 jobs in December and the government can’t create them. The only way those jobs are coming back is if entrepreneurs can get broad and strong patents for their inventions to attract the investors that will fund their payrolls.

    I only hope this message gets through to the SCOTUS and they make intelligent decisions this year that pave the way for patents on business methods, processes, algorithms and software of all types that will results in millions of new jobs for years to come,

  55. 10

    I am glad you mentioned Shark Tank, which, since I am an “Actual Inventor” is a favorite of mind.

    Whenever some of the anti patent posters and the those with socialist agendas rant against business methods, algorithms and the like on this blog I often want to tell them to go watch Shark Tank!

    It’s a clear example of why we need strong patent laws for producing jobs and turning our economy around.

    Just last Friday a gentleman received $500,000 dollars in cash because he had a broad patent on the method for putting 3 dimensional designs on helmets. The products he presented on the show were motor cycle helmets for biker types. But when his partner stated the patent was broad and strong enough to prevent anyone else from placing a 3 d design on any helmets the investors jumped at the chance to fund his start up!

    This new business is going to need to hire employees to produce the helmets and contract with other businesses for supplies and services. And this is how we create jobs in America!

    We lost 85,000 jobs in December and the government can’t create them. The only way those jobs are coming back is if entrepreneurs can get broad and strong patents for their inventions to attract the investors that will fund their payrolls.

    I only hope this message gets through to the SCOTUS and they make intelligent decisions this year that pave the way for patents on business methods, processes, algorithms and software of all types that will results in millions of new jobs for years to come,

  56. 8

    So guys, if an app submits a CON of an app that is now allowed. Would it be mean to word the rejection as to cover all the allowed claims and the claims at issue?

  57. 7

    I have heard of the face “bro,” but it was for men and invented on Seinfeld by Kramer and George Costanza’s father. It featured an audio device playing a samba soundtrack… But I digress.

    You always know when the lefties are at work trying to hammer home a deconstructionist message – release a TV show. The first episode features an angry gay man named “Milford Meaney,” who hates patents and talks about greed grubbers and harmonization in a matter-of-fact way. Then they all appear on Jerry Springer and beat eachother with file folders…

    Just what the profession needs

  58. 4

    The headgear of U.S. Patent No. 6,039,710 was featured as part of several episodes of “Ally McBeal”, another David E. Kelley TV lawyer show. The headgear was called a “face bra” and was to have been invented by the secretary/paralegal Elaine Vassal (played by Jane Krakowski). Kelley is a lawyer.

  59. 3

    David Kelley is the first listed inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,039,710. That patent is assigned to Fox and claims headgear that helps prevent skin sagging. The patent was prosecuted by Vierra Magen. However, none of their attorneys could be described as curmudgeonly.

Comments are closed.