- Adam Liptak: With Great Power There Must Also Come – Great Responsibility
- Federal Circuit’s First Reversal of PTAB
- Vera Ranieri: Lexmark Tries To Use Patent Law To Stop Consumers From Buying Cheap Ink
- Ivan Moreno: Colorado To Start Prosecuting Patent Trolls
- Kevin E. Noonan: Ariosa v. Sequenom
- Gannon Burgett: Canon Might Be Entering Into The Drone Market
Get a Job doing Patent Law
Finally! A definition of “patent troll” I can live with!
“Colorado will start prosecuting so-called patent trolls, businesses and individuals who falsely claim to have the rights to an idea or product so they can intimidate inventors and companies into doling out money to settle or avoid lawsuits.”
◾Ivan Moreno: Colorado To Start Prosecuting Patent Trolls
I guess this plays into American’s current short-sighted zeal. Just wipe out all the current patents and it is true that for a brief time the economy is probably helped. Probably get a 2-3 year period before the effects on the economy turn negative.
After all, it is every American’s right to do whatever they want. The propaganda machine rivals the Wehrmact’s.
Just wipe out all the current patents
I’m not aware of any serious proposals to “wipe out all the current patents.”
You are “not aware” of a lot of things.
Perhaps you shouldn’t play that Vinnie Barbarino meme so much when inte11ectually honest legal discussions are in order…
Kevin E. Noonan: Ariosa v. Sequenom
Sad. Kevin doesn’t even try anymore.
Just one hacktackular rant after another.
He appears to believe that by some “gentle” subterfuge he and his fellow patent maximalists will succeed in convincing Congress to enact the zombie mythology he’s been fantasizing about for years, i.e., throw in some old eligible subject matter into the claim and voila! you’ve crossed the 101 hurdle.
If you buy that, then anything’s possible. Why not just ask Congress to state expressly that information itself is eligible for patent protection? Why hide the ball?
Kevin doesn’t say. No surprise there.
Your straw man – as typical – fails to address the issue in any way, shape or form.
In an inte11ectually honest manner, that is.
But you are “right” in one aspect: we don’t need a “gentle” anything.
We do not need patent peace for our time.
We don’t need a Chamberlain response, afraid of what the Royal Nine would do.
We need a Churchill response – someone like Judge Rich who correctly noted the C R P insertion of dicta and knew what the law really was and correctly set aside what the Court did not have authority to re-write.
The best part about your comment “anon” is that it shows how very, very removed from reality you are.
Kevin, at least, knows what he’s up against. It’s not the Supreme Court. It’s ordinary people and their ordinary representives in Congress.
Kevin just thinks that he and his super important buddies are much smarter than all those people. Only Kevin and his buddies understand how “true innovation” really works. Unfortunately, just like you, Kevin couldn’t be more wrong.
Like I said: the blog is already a hacktackular joke. The comments are worse and you and Eric with your brain-numbing poo-flinging at the Supreme Court are the primary reason for that.
But feel proud! After all, the endless whining of patent attorneys who find their jobs too “unpredictable” is something that really pulls at everyone’s heartstrings.
Lots of Red Queen edicts from you there Malcolm with the usual lack of substance.
I notice that you say nothing there – or here – about the substance of the discussion points. ClassicmalcolmAccuseOthersOfThatWhichMalcolmDoes – flinging indeed.
How is your “battle of transperancies” going with Dr. Noonan?
What a chump you are Malcolm.
How is your “battle of transperancies” going with Dr. Noonan?
Pretty well, I think. I’m still acknowledging the predictable downsides of making it easier to protect information by patenting the use of old methods for accessing that information and Kevin isn’t. He simply refuses to do so because — presumably — its against his clients’ interests.
Or (more than) presumably your straw man has no traction with real law (or innovation to be protected by real law).
Your “pet theory” dissolves to the mere “no aggregation” doctrine, for which your dissembling “mental step” or “information” is quite the fallacy (and the mere aggregation doctrine handles the aggregate “information” smoke you blow quite nicely).
What a chump.
Make the lowlife’s pay:
link to arstechnica.com
After EFF filed a motion to dismiss the patent, Garfum replied with a brief explaining how its patent was special and eschewed “traditional databases.”
That 19-page brief was all the fight Garfum’s lawyers had. Once a hearing to consider the validity of their patent was scheduled, they dropped the case. Now EFF is seeking to make Garfum pay attorneys’ fees.
“The idea that you could patent an abstract idea, find innocent enthusiasts online and demand settlement money—and then slink away once challenged and before the court issues a ruling—goes against any sense of fair play,” writes EFF lawyer Daniel Nazer …
More here: link to eff.org
Fair play, Malcolm? What sort of an argument is that then? One might suppose it has as much chance of gaining a purchase as a snowflake in a roaring furnace.
But then again, there is something called “common sense” and, even beyond that, something which lawyers on the European mainland call “das Fairness Principe” that people do have and so which does survive, against all the odds. Perhaps that will play a role.
Interesting, I find, that they eagerly borrow the word “Fairness” from the English, because it says what they want to say more clearly und unambiguously than in their own langages. Says something about our history I think, about how disputes have always been decided under English law.
To be fair to the French though, I ought to concede that they do have in their language the word “le Fair-Play”.
All the more remarkable, that the French have no word for “entrepreneur”.
Someone should be shocked that the patent office would issue a patent on abstract idea in the first place.
In all “fairness,” please define “abstract idea” with a working definition that a non-legally trained person, a.k.a., an examiner, can use to effectively and efficiently filter obvious (pardon the pun) abstract ideas.
I agree that the computer-implemented business methods are junk, but where do we draw the line (perhaps we consult MM and Anon on every case to set us straight).
Frankly, I think the EPO approach is more effective and efficient at this point.
Abstract?
The best definitions I can give you are from examples that we know of things that are nonstatutory in things that are claimed at the level of abstraction.
Nonstatutory include products of nature, laws of nature and business methods.
The things that are claim that the level of distraction – the idea level – our claims to a result. These claims effectively claim a result and are not supported by any means, materials or acts. Essentially, the point of novelty in the claim is “functional.”
You want to define “abstract” using “levels of abstraction” and your own NON-claim-as-a-whole-FAIL-because-at-its-core-all-matter-is-composed-of-ineligible-electrons-protons-and-neutrons “logic”…
Please tell me you recognize the problem with your method, Ned.
And please leave your PON canard on the shelf until you can explain why Congress did not mandate the Jepson claim form as the only appropriate claim form.
Thanks.
Comments are closed.