Earlier today, Senator Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced the bipartisan Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015 (PATENT) Act. The PATENT Act is a revised version of prior proposed legislation that addresses some of the most severe criticisms of those proposals. It’s also well situated to move forward, as it’s supported by leaders from both parties. From the bill’s summarv (Sec. 1 is the title and table of contents; Sec. 2 are definitions; if the formatting is messed up, click the link for the original source):
SEC. 3. PLEADING AND EARLY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS: Form 18 is
eliminated. Plaintiffs must identify each patent and claim allegedly infringed,
which products or processes are infringing, and describe the alleged infringement.
Allows plaintiffs to describe information in general terms if it is not accessible to
them. Clarifies that pleadings can be amended and allows for confidential
information to be filed under seal. Exempts 271(e) (Hatch-Waxman and biosimilars)
proceedings. Requires plaintiffs to make additional disclosures to the court and the
PTO about the plaintiff and the asserted patents shortly after filing.
SEC. 4. CUSTOMER STAY: Allows a case against a customer to be stayed while
the manufacturer litigates the alleged infringement, provided that the
manufacturer is involved in a lawsuit in the US involving the same issues. The
customer stay is available only to those at the end of the supply chain, who are
selling or using a technology that they acquired from a manufacturer, without
materially modifying it. Allows for a stay to be lifted where it would cause undue
prejudice or be manifestly unjust.
SEC. 5. DISCOVERY LIMITS: Requires a court to stay expensive discovery
pending resolution of preliminary motions—specifically motions to dismiss, transfer
venue, and sever accused infringers. Gives a court discretion to allow limited
discovery necessary to resolve these motions or a motion for a preliminary
injunction, or if it finds that additional discovery is necessary to preserve evidence
or otherwise prevent specific prejudice to a party. Allows parties to consent to be
excluded from discovery limitations. Exempts Section 271(e) (Hatch-Waxman and
biosimilars) cases. Clarifies that timelines for responsive pleadings provided by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not altered, and nothing prohibits a court from
ordering or local rules from requiring the exchange of contentions.
SEC. 6. JUDICIAL CONFERENCE DISCOVERY REFORMS: Requires the
Judicial Conference to develop rules or procedures to address additional issues
involving discovery in patent cases. These include to what extent each party is
entitled to “core documentary evidence” and if they should be responsible for the
costs of production, and other issues involving discovery sequence and scope. Asks
the Judicial Conference to implement case management procedures for patent
cases.
SEC. 7. FEES AND RECOVERY: Provides that reasonable attorney fees will be
awarded if a court determines the position or conduct of the non-prevailing party
(plaintiff or defendant) was not objectively reasonable, unless special circumstances
make an award unjust. The winner must show that the non-prevailing party’s
position was not objectively reasonable and the judge must make a ruling for fees to shift – this is not a presumptive fee shifting rule. Fee shifting extends to cases
where a party attempts to unilaterally withdraw from a case on the eve of a trial.
Keeps 271(e) (Hatch-Waxman and biosimilars) proceedings under current law.
Fee Recovery: Requires a plaintiff to identify interested parties in the litigation,
and provides a process for a court to recover fees where the abusive litigant is
judgement-proof. If a plaintiff cannot certify it has sufficient funds to satisfy a fee
award, it must notify interested parties, who can opt out of their interest. Permits a
court to exempt institutions of higher education and qualifying parties in the
interest of justice.
SEC. 8. PRE-SUIT NOTICE/DEMAND LETTERS: Prevents vague patent
infringement demand letters from being preludes to litigation by requiring that
certain information be included in order for the letter to be considered evidence that
subsequent infringement was “willful”. If the required information is not in the
written notice, the recipient’s time to respond to a later complaint is extended by 30
days.
SEC. 9. ABUSIVE DEMAND LETTERS: Provides that, if someone violates Section
5 of the FTC Act in connection with patent assertion and has engaged in
widespread demand letters abuse, civil penalties for FTC rule violations will attach.
The provision does not impinge on legitimate licensing activity or expand the
authority of the FTC.
SEC. 10. TRANSPARENCY: Requires patent holders to disclose to the PTO
whenever there is an assignment of interest in the patent that results in a change of
ultimate parent entity. If a patent holder fails to disclose, it will not be able to
recover increased damages of attorney fees (unless this would be manifestly unjust).
SEC. 11. IP LICENSES IN BANKRUPTCY: Makes clear that as a matter of public
policy, US courts will not recognize the action of a foreign court to unilaterally
cancel a license to a US patent or trademark if the licensor goes bankrupt. Extends
current protection of licensees of US patents in bankruptcy to trademarks.
SECTION 12. SMALL BUSINESS PROVISIONS: Directs the PTO to develop
educational resources for small businesses targeted in patent suits and to provide
support to companies named in infringement actions. Instructs PTO to create a
section on its website that will list pending patent cases, so that recipients of
demand letters and defendants in lawsuits can more easily identify ongoing
litigation that may relate to their case.
SEC. 13. STUDIES: Provides for three studies on 1) the secondary market for
patents; 2) the possibility of a pilot program for a patent small claims program: and
3) business method patent quality.
SEC. 14. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS: Technical corrections and improvements
to the AIA.
SEC. 15. EFFECTIVE DATE: Date of enactment except as otherwise provided.
SEC 16. SEVERABILITY: Should any portion of the law be held invalid, this
provision allows the rest to stand.
The full text of the bill is available here: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/PATENT%20Act.pdf
(Entirely unrelated but also in Sen. Grassley’s Instagram feed: a few hours later he met with my Dean and the Deans of the University of Iowa College of Engineering and Division of Continuing Education.)
Sections 7-10 are GROSSLY needed. It’s about time.
Patent law is hardly the only body of law used by unscrupulous sorts for shakedowns. It is just one that has more recently come to the fore…and in most instances, so it seems to me, is being used/abused by persons far removed from practicing the full gamut of patent law (many of whom are not even eligible to sit for the USPTO exam, but get to dabble in the law by virtue of somehow having passed a state bar exam). In a way I liken them to the shakedown artists who abused California’s B&P Code a few years ago until the legislature and State Bar finally got off their duffs and put their feet down to curtail such practices.
The unfairness of much of what goes on is manifest, but rather than jump to the conclusion “Damnit…we need and must pass a law (not necessarily one we really need, but one that makes us look like we really, really care)!”, I am incllined to ask just what the heck are trial judges doing these days? Why are they allowing abuses to happen? Why are they allowing fishing expedition discovery that unnecessarily runs up costs?
Quite frankly, as much as I look with disdain upon ambulance chasing opportunists, I am more troubled by the abject failure of so many in the judiciary to keep tight reins on their calendars and ensure that the adversarial process in all matters before them is efficient, timely, fair, affordable, holds counsel and clients alike accountable, etc.
Mr. Slonecker,
The easy answer is that that just makes too much sense.
Why focus on the available means and objects within your existing sphere of influence, when such does not reach the ability to reshape the wax nose to your possible philosophical bent?
Why hold the judiciary responsible for the power they already have?
Why hold the Patent Office (and examiners) responsible for the power they already have?
To do so simply will not obtain more power for these entities.
Who cares if steps are available NOW?
There is just so much more to be gained by not taking those logical steps.
20 more American companies hammered on this one right now. Not only for the fees, which are absurd enough, but they are also locked in to a potentially years long litigation with large, unknown potential damages at the end- a situation that can erode ability to raise capital, to fund R&D, or to stay competitive with others who have not acquired a vicious parasite. And all for what? To protect “intellectual property” as disclosed in this patent? Alice did little and was quickly neutralized. No judicial action will do anything. This will not stop until Congress acts, but none of the proposed laws will solve the problem either. Nibbling around the edges won’t do. Non MoT Methods and per se software must be eliminated from the patent regime.
Behold the innovation:
US 6,266,674 B1 Priority Date: 03/16/1992
1. Method for storing information provided by a user which comprises: in response to user input, receiving and storing information;
in response to user input, designating the information as data while the information is being received;
in response to user input, designating at least a portion of the information as a label while the information is being received;
in response to user input, traversing a data structure and providing an indication of a location in the data structure;
in response to user input, storing the label at the location in the data structure; and
associating the label with the data.
Today’s lovely drive-by monologue of non-existent wanna-be law brought to you courtesy of the one that does not want to understand real law.
Not only that, but our local infringer, according to the facts of his case (not legal advice), would not be an infringer had he merely documented and made public his software system at the time when he built the software system. It appears that had Martin taken the time to learn the law then he wouldn’t be in trouble now (and endlessly annoying us.)
(This is according to the fact pattern that Martin gave us and should not be construed to be legal advice.)
How dare you point out the obvious…
link to bloomberg.com
Kind of interesting the debate about whether software is tangible.
Maybe “tangible” has a different meaning under state law? I mean, it seems if you can steal software and people are angry enough to bring a lawsuit against you for the theft, it’s “tangible” enough.
“Tangible” most likely should tie the “idea” of software to both the patent and copyright contexts.
It can be critical to grasp the concept that the thought of software is different than software.
Of course, those that recognize that software is defined to be a manufacture in its own right and a machine component are likely to readily grasp that software is not something TOTALLY in the mind, and will be more mature in recongizing that the different aspects of software gather different protections under the different Inte11ectual Property laws.
Those that recognize certain aspects of software gather copyright protection, and that tangibility is a requirement for copyright protection can readily grasp that software is tangible.
Likewise, those that recongize that certain aspects are not covered under copyright law (notably the utility aspects) will readily recognize that these aspects are meant to be covered by patent law.
What I find interesting about this is how the anti-patent’s movement characterization of software plays into other areas of the law.
According to what some of the anti-patent movement says software is nothing but logic rules so how can you be prosecuted for logic rules?
It goes deeper, as “logic rules” are just math, and you cannot obtain copyright for “just math.”
Note how the dialogue evaporates when a full discussion is sought on these matters.
If patent owners are to provide claim charts for every claim and every product, perhaps requiring the filing of 10,000 page complaints, wouldn’t it be fair if infringers were required in the same manner to provide claim charts for counterclaims for invalidity, showing every element in every reference for every claim alleged to be invalid? Now we get to the 10,000 page counterclaim, which of course must be filed within 20 days.
Lovely.
There’s a huge difference between sueing someone for patent infringement, on one hand, and being the target of the lawsuit on the other.
The plaintiff typically has plenty of time to deliberate and consider strategy before initiating suit. The provisions here are designed to force the plaintiff to actually engage in some thinking prior to filing suit, as opposed to simply filing in East Texas and waiting to see what happens.
If patent owners are to provide claim charts for every claim and every product, perhaps requiring the filing of 10,000 page complaints
That should never, ever happen. If that’s happening, then there are far bigger problems with the patent system that need to be addressed.
wouldn’t it be fair if infringers were required in the same manner to provide claim charts for counterclaims for invalidity, showing every element in every reference for every claim alleged to be invalid? Now we get to the 10,000 page counterclaim, which of course must be filed within 20 days.
Assuming for the sake of argument that a 10,000 page patent infringement complaint was filed, what’s “fair” about such a requirement? Plaintiff certainly had more than twenty days to figure out the meaning of its own claim terms and its theory of infringement.
As we know, the game is routinely played by plaintiff’s throwing in the kitchen sink and seeing what sticks. Does anybody have the stats on how many patent claims filed in East Texas are dismissed at summary judgment? And how many of those dismissals result in fee shifting or sanctions (the answer is “not enough”)?
MM, the way statute reads, it does seem to require a claim chart for every claim and every product, and if there is a mistake the whole complaint might be dismissed.
In actual cases, one does not actually have to provide a claim chart for every single product if one can provide a basis for asserting that other products infringe because we know that they include XYZ circuit, for example, or that they must infringe because they comply with XYZ standard or specification.
As I said, my concern is that the legislation seems to impose a mandatory pleading requirement that essentially involves a claim chart for every claim and every product. This could result in a 10,000 page complaint if taken literally.
“MM, the way statute reads, it does seem to require a claim chart for every claim and every product, and if there is a mistake the whole complaint might be dismissed.”
Do you really think a court would interpret the statute thusly Ned? Do you think the federal circuit is going to let that stand?
Ned. If you are a business owner and you are sued for patent infringement, shouldn’t you at least know what is being accused? Is it the copier you use, your payroll system, or your customer service software? Shouldn’t you be able to look at the complaint and have some understanding whether you need contact your copier supplier, or payroll system supplier and what are you doing that they think infringes their patent? Currently, we have a system where the patent owner can file suit by simply stating I have a patent and you infringe without supplying any basis for the allegations. If you are a legitimate patent owner, before you file suit you have done your homework and done your claim charts. To suggest that these complaints need to be 10,000 pages to meet the requirements is unrealistic. Providing some facts and the reason for a suit that will cost millions to defend isn’t so onerous and the bill provides loopholes to address situations where a patent owner doesn’t have all the facts and can still file suit.
Carry, what is wrong with simply identifying every asserted claim and every product that allegedly infringes, without providing a claim chart?
As to whether one needs to file a 10,000 page complaint depends on the number of claims and the number of products, and whether or not the legislation actually requires a claim chart for every product and every claim. I think the legislation actually requires a claim chart.
As to whether one might have to claim indemnity, that is something particular to a company and their contracts with their suppliers. Almost no supplier will indemnify against contributory infringement. Certainly the Uniform Commercial Code does not require it.
Because if someone is accused of infringing that could cost millions to defend, they should obtain some reasonable notice of why they infringe. If I am Dell and sell a computer, is it the memory, the processor, is it the operating system or browser, is it they keyboard software, the mouse? Providing reasonable notice of why I infringe through a claim chart isn’t unreasonable. I agree that this shouldn’t be onerous and an we don’t want this provision to be an impediment to valid claims. But every patent plaintiff should be doing a claim chart before filing suit. A defendant ought to be able to figure out from the complaint what exactly is being accused of infringing and why.
Carry, let us be clear, it is the claims. If the claims cover the Dell computer, Dell simply cannot pass off to its microprocessor supplier responsibility for the infringement claim.
And it should be obvious why maltreatment of claims – be it through the “Gist/Abstract” sword or perhaps the unwillingness to treat the claim as a whole, that yields the greatest mischief in patent law.
provide claim charts for counterclaims for invalidity, showing every element in every reference for every claim alleged to be invalid? Now we get to the 10,000 page counterclaim, which of course must be filed within 20 days.
Just to point out the ridiculous hyperbole here – The office routinely files documents which show “every element in every reference for every claim alleged to be invalid.” They routinely do it in under 20 days, and it does not take 10,000 pages.
That being said, MM is obviously right that there’s a clear asymmetry between the plaintiff and defendant, and it’s ridiculous to suggest that the defendant respond within the 20 day timeframe.
Did you mean to be self-conflicted with your “ridiculous” statement, Random…?
Read again what you wrote – slowly. See if you can realize the contradiction.
There’s only a contradiction if you don’t know the law or read what I said. I was simply making the point that a 40 page action is nowhere close to this supposed “10,000 page” invalidity defense. Ned is making it sound like this rule, along with “fairness” will require a ridiculous amount of work that few defendants could prepare and that no judge could reasonably handle. It will not.
But just because the rejection document is relatively short doesn’t mean that a 20 day window makes sense. You can find art in 20 days, but it probably won’t be the best art. You can map a claimset, but the claimset is subject to a lower standard of review. Most examiners generally don’t engage in legal argument. When they fail, they try again. It’s ridiculous to ask someone to formulate a legal defense to a multimillion dollar action when you won’t even know what the state of the art is until you’re halfway through your window.
Just because an argument can ultimately be boiled down into a relatively terse document doesn’t mean it’s “fair” to give one side years to prepare an attack and the other side less than a month to respond. The fact that one CAN mount a defense in that amount of time doesn’t mean they should be made to or that it would be just to make them.
There will not be 10k page counterclaims. That doesn’t mean you should only give someone 20 days to generate it.
Nice FAIL Random – you cannot have your “logic” work both ways, as the caveats you seek for the one apply fully for the other.
You’re right anon, the law never distinguishes procedurally between the plaintiff and defendant.
You’re so intelligent. I’m going to you for all my law questions.
Random, the examiner may consider 95+ references, but the OA generally uses the best art only. In reexaminations and in court, the infringer generally files scads of “counts,” using large numbers of references and combinations, the more the merrier. By trial, a lot of this is sorted out, but not initially.
In court, the infringer has to file what are known as preliminary invalidity contentions. These are claim charts just like the claim charts for infringement but mapped against the prior art. These correspond claim charts in IPRs petitions.
So, with a large number of claims and a large number references, the number of pages for these preliminary invalidity contentions can match in volume the preliminary infringement contentions filed by the patent owner. It may not be 10,000 pages, but it will be quite a few.
Consider that it might cost $1,000,000 or more simply to prepare the claim charts comparing claims against products. Thus the upfront cost to prepare a complaint could be extremely expensive. Further, if the infringer were required to provide similar claim charts for his counterclaims of invalidity, these expenses could be enormous as well.
I simply do not see the utility of putting into a complaint what is now put into what we know as preliminary infringement contentions and preliminary invalidity contentions. It simply not necessary.
Further, by forcing the filing of such expensively produced claim charts in a complaint, one truly sees what is afoot. It is not notice the infringer bar is seeking. It is a barrier.
I simply do not see the utility of putting into a complaint what is now put into what we know as preliminary infringement contentions and preliminary invalidity contentions. It simply not necessary.
Well the utility is that you can motion to dismiss prior to any discovery, couldn’t you? The intent is to prevent (whether you’d agree with the characterization or not) “fishing” for infringement, you have to know there’s infringement prior to filing, and thats the intent right? As you say, you’re going to be doing the charts anyway, so it’s not raising the cost of an action you’re going to go forward with anyway.
I’m not saying its the right call here, I’m smart enough to know I don’t know. I’m simply saying its not without its logic. How would you delineate fishing expeditions? Or do you think they ought to be allowed?
The office routinely files documents which show “every element in every reference for every claim alleged to be invalid.” They routinely do it in under 20 days, and it does not take 10,000 pages.
Uh, given Dennis’s more recent post, didn’t you mean to say that they routinely do it in more like 540 days?
They also don’t waive their right to make up new rejections later, in case the first ones don’t stick.
Uh, given Dennis’s more recent post, didn’t you mean to say that they routinely do it in more like 540 days?
When a case is first up on an examiner’s docket they have 28 days to do it. Most of the time it’s done before that. 540 days doesn’t matter when 510 are waiting in line.
They also don’t waive their right to make up new rejections later, in case the first ones don’t stick.
That’s true as I say above.
When a case is first up on an examiner’s docket they have 28 days to do it. Most of the time it’s done before that. 540 days doesn’t matter when 510 are waiting in line.
Well alright, then. I’ll just tell the judge, “Your honor, our associate will turn around those invalidity charts in 20 days, after it shows up on his docket in 18 months.”
Why the carve out for 271(e)?
(page 31)
If these are “good measures,” than why are these not good measures across the board,
Why the pharma carve out?
This should be seen for the purely political play that it is: keep the pharma big money interests on the sidelines.
Can anyone provide an objective, non-political alternative reason why these “good measures” are not being universally applied?
Becuase 271(e) is a statutory act of infringement. For at least (a)(3) and (4), there is no generic product available for the brand company to determine which claims of the Orange Book-listed patents are infringed.
The status of statutory act of infringement is not germane to the point here.
A for effort, but no objective reach.
A for effort, but no objective reach.
What? You asked for an answer as to why certain sections don’t apply to 271(e) actions. You were told that it’s because there is no actual accused product in those cases – therefore it makes no sense to generate claim charts or to do product-related discovery. I’d say that the “status of statutory act of infringement” is quite germane.
You misaim as to where the carve-out is DanH. The carve-out is for this “anti-Tr011” legislation – and if the “benefits” of this legislation are “so good” it makes no sense to carve out those benefits/responsibilities/reach for the pharma group.
You have taken your eye off of the ball.
Anon- I reiterate my post, which was qualified.
“For at least (a)(3) and (4)… .” I did not comment on the other carved-out sections because I have no idea why they were carved-out for pharma. I merely pointed out that for (a)(3) and (4) there appears to be a logical reason that pharma was carved-out.
Sheesh!
Your post no matter how qualified missed the point.
Repeating yourself doesn’t make the miss into a hit.
(move the goal posts back to the actual discussion point, thanks)
“Sheesh!” right back atcha.
PATENT Act written for Big companies so they can steal from small companies.
This bill requires a startup to “guarantee” that it has Funds to cover the cost of Goolge/microsoft/facebook lawyers.
The startup has to provide a certificate to the court that it has the FUNDS to cover Googles/cisco/microsoft lawyer fees!
It is bad for the small companies, Because a small company will never be able to enforce their patents!
Before saying it is the good thing. Please go read the Bill.
link to judiciary.senate.gov
Page 26 Line 7 -15
————————–
Not later than 45 days after being served with an initial state-ment under subparagraph (A), a party alleging infringement shall file a certification that—
(i) establishes and certifies to the court, under oath, that it will have sufficient funds available to satisfy any award of reasonable attorney fees under this section if an award is assessed;
————————————————
That mean if you are a startup: you will never be able to go after Google, Microsoft, Facebook, or any other big company.
This would be the biggest gift to the Big company Lobbyist from the congress. It is bipartisan because both republican and democrats what these big companies to write checks to them.
Great day for crony capitalism !
I think you’re missing the next (ii)-(iv).
Your argument would be stronger if you didn’t leave out parts (ii)-(iv) of an “or” statute.
Please read it again ..
“OR” Applies to only for iii and iv,
i and ii are required.
Example: if you are a startup and microsoft/google stole your IP and have made your company bankrupt,
for (i)how will you come up with a the required certificate “guarantee” for Funds and
for (ii) what will you say about your bankrupt businees now .. because all you have left is IP now ?
if you are a startup and microsoft/google stole your IP and have made your company bankrupt
Examples?
Criminal Malcolm, your penchant for self-FAIL is immense.
Think i4i.
Think i4i.
Think junk patent that should never have been granted.
Any other examples?
MM, I’m not so sure I understand your position on i4i’s patent. Why do you think it should not have been granted?
You know by now.
It is plainly obvious: the Red Queen has issued her edict. How dare you want more than that.
One More Example what “Google” did to the Startup company VSL ‘s video optimization IP
link to qz.com
link to jefflindsay.com
Again read up on the case and VSL technology BEFORE you comment with one or 2 lines
Google / Microsoft / Facebook / Cisco All want this so they can intimidate smaller companies to sell their IP for pennies on the Dollar.
No one thinks Google is spending $17 million lobbying to make sure mom and pop shops / retail stored don’t get nuisance value demand letters !
It’s super important to Brian Smith that “start-ups” get to sue Google, Facebook, and Microsoft.
VSL technology
Let’s see the claims, Brian.
As i mentioned before .. read up before commenting with one liners …
Here is the VSL patent# and claims … European Patent EP 2 026 277
link to data.epo.org
Go read it and disassemble for all of us and let us know how anyone lawyer can come up with these claims and how they are obvious or invalid …
at least try to be original or off script this time ..
At last a decent software patent! It is data compression related. The basic idea is to chop a picture into rectangular pieces.
For example the American flag would become 14 pieces:
7 red rectangles
6 white rectangles
1 blue square with stars
For the red stripes, instead of sending every red pixel, you send 1 red pixel and the size of the rectangle.
For the white stripes, instead of sending every white pixel, you send 1 white pixel and the size of the rectangle.
For the blue square you send the whole thing.
I am surprised that no one had thought of this before 2002 but the PTO said it was true. JPEG2000 for example uses tiling but all tiles are the same size.
I am surprised that no one had thought of this before 2002
Define “this.”
People have been saving space by breaking information down and using shorthand/symbols to represent duplicated information for eons. Call it “compression” or call it “using your brain.” It’s just logic. And logic isn’t eligible for patenting.
Handing out patents on information processing logic turns the patent system into joke. Again: it’s the main reason that we are seeing all these reforms which the lovers of junky software patents despise. And they refuse to talk about the problem except to smear everyone who points it out as “anti-patent” or “anti-innovation.
MM, “just using your brain”??? So now using your brain to invent is per se ineligible for patentability? Information processing is what you are paid for MM. Information processing machines are projected to replace 10’s of millions of people over the next 10 to 20 years.
Information processing is extremely hard. There are probably more people in information processing with IQ over 150 than any other science.
But, we know you get paid to push the propaganda of the anti-patent movement. The stuff they generate is geared toward the uneducated.
Let’s use some of that same logic that Malcolm uses in a different art field.
Let’s again look at my big box of electrons protons and neutrons.
People have been making things using configurations of electrons protons and neutrons for eons. The manner in which these configurations stay together have been the same for eons. And electrons protons and neutrons are not eligible for patenting.
Oops.
(and that is not even noting the fallacy that Malcolm implicitly engages in here by trying to conflate the thought of software with software and his implicit moving of goalposts to claims TOTALLY in the mind, which only he argues about).
Same old dissembling C R P Merry-Go-Round yet again….
I wouldn’t get too excited about the patent claims I see (are these from an actual “patent”?). You have to be careful with the EPO Examiners, as they can read the invention into the claims. Doesn’t claim 1 read on JPEG or MPEG? My remembrance of JPEG is that you divide a picture into blocks of pixels. For each block, you determine an average, and they you encode the pixels as differences from the average. If the block is all one color, then you can condense this to basically the just the average plus an indication all other pixels are the average. If you have a lot of blocks of one color, then you can really reduce the stored size. If the blocks contain pixels that are highly variable, then the reduction in size isn’t as much.
To me, claim 1 seems very close to what happens in JPEG.
NWPA: So now using your brain to invent is per se ineligible for patentability?
Somehow you and “anon” keep managing to confuse
patent claims that, on their face, protect information-processing logic
with
innovations that require logic to create (pretty much everything).
There’s a huge difference beween the two. I can see the difference. Why can’t you two see it?
We all know the answer to that question. You two should take some time off this weekend and think about it.
Information processing is extremely hard.
Some of it is.
But the overwhelming majority of it is incredibly easy and second nature for most human beings.
And a lot of the really hard information processing that people do is ineligible for patenting and always has been, everywhere in the world, and nobody ever seriously questions why that has always been the case. Given that fact, it’s unclear what point you’re trying to make.
More dissembling from Malcolm, as he is the one that attempts to confuse claims by his nigh constant attempts to have claims be on things TOTALLY in the mind.
It is pretty clear that MM attempts to disrupt any discussion that doesn’t fit the policy sheet his employers send to him daily.
You give Malcolm too much credit with the notion of a daily updated policy sheet.
He has been stuck with the same stale and trite script for nine years and running.
Brian,
I think it’s telling that VSL is refusing to let anyone see the allegedly “incriminating” Post-It notes.
I’m glad you’re not on the jury, because it looks like you’ve already found for the plaintiffs based on nothing more than their filing.
Google VS Startup Skyhook
Google stole their technology, IP, intimidated their customers, made them almost bankrupt, and after 6 years “settled”
link to law360.com
link to fosspatents.com
Also it would help if you read the history, patents and technology involved before you comment with one liners
From Brian’s link:
Two of the four patents [Skyhook] originally asserted were dismissed
We all know how you guys operate, Brian.
Try harder, please.
I am assuming you were not able to comprehend what “two of the four” means ? or do you only know how to count till 2 ?
This will give you an idea on how BIG companies bankrupt smaller rivals ….
The 10 Best Emails Exposed In The Google-Skyhook Lawsuit
link to businessinsider.com
The invention:
1)GPS Map out the location of WiFi hotspots by driving around in cars with WiFi hotspot detectors which record where the car is when they detect the WiFi hotspot
2)Store the GPS and HotSpot data in a database
3)Lookup the location later based on what WiFi hotspots are nearby to where your phone is.
Was the idea of lookup your position from the location of the nearest WiFi really new in 2004? Storing and retrieving it from a database does not add very much (if anything) to the innovation. It sounds more like the idea for a business rather than an invention.
I am assuming you were not able to comprehend what “two of the four” means ?
Keep digging, Brian.
Here’s your problem: practicing the claims of junk patents is something that both ordinary people, little companies, and big companies do all the time. How can they help it? They’re are hundreds of thousands of junk patents out there.
On the other hand, sueing someone — anyone — on a junk patent or on some other baseless claim is what toxic j rks do. And your beloved little “start up” did that twice.
This will give you an idea on how BIG companies bankrupt smaller rivals ….
Also amusing is how Brian seems to assume that his beloved little “start-ups” are innocent angels who would never, ever pretend that they weren’t aware of some prior art or who never ever make an embarassingly ridiculous argument to obtain a junky patent.
But pretty much every week the CAFC treats with another pile of Rule 36 affirmances of tanked claims demonstrating that the exact opposite is true.