Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

9 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

  1. 3

    Oh sooooo suuuuuperrr techno.

    But, mounting a TV to a pickup truck has structure that MM can see and touch, so its not an abstract idea and it involves two super high tech T-bars so its suuppper not obvi eh MM?

    1. An entertainment support system attached to a pickup truck having a plurality of receptacles in sidewalls of a truck box spaced above a truck bed, comprising:
    a mount including
    a T-member comprising a support for supporting a display device, and
    an inverted T-member having a vertical arm disposed in slidable engagement with the T-member, and a telescoping horizontal arm extending orthogonal to the vertical arm and adapted to engage the receptacles of the truck box.

    link to patents.google.com

    1. 3.1

      mounting a TV to a pickup truck has structure that MM can see and touch, so its not an abstract idea

      True! It’s a tangible physical object that can be described objectively in terms of its physical attributes, unlike a correlation, a price, or a risk.

  2. 2

    Almost any mere two page popular media article about a major area of patent law is bound to be full of dangerous oversimplifications, even if not just a letter to the editor [partially for business generating purposes?] that anyone can submit.
    What’s missing is a warning to consult with a patent attorney about any such prior art questions before making any financial decisions about any patent activities.

    1. 2.1

      That C R P goes way beyond “mere simplification,” and supposedly the YEC vettes this stuff (and its lack of control shows poorly for its purposes).

      One would think an entrepreneurial group would show a little care. Not sure why you seem to want to defend that group, but you are correct in that a disclaimer and an invitation to chat with someone actually knowledgeable on the subject would have been a minimal level of “information value.”

      I “get” that entrepreneurs like to think that “rules don’t apply to them,” as they “reinvent” business, but there is a difference between being courageous and adventuress on the one hand, and being blind or worse, misinformed on the other.

      The article uses a mishmash of words and gets some pretty fundamental basics all messed up. You would think that someone at YEC might have thought: “Hey, let’s check this for accuracy.”

  3. 1

    The piece in Forbes on “what is prior art” goes on about the consequences of “infringing upon” the prior art. It seeks to end on a reassuring note, and so concludes with this hair-raising sentence:

    “If an applicant created the work and then the work was described in a printed publication, this event will not generally be considered prior art.”

    What sort of people read such stuff? Does the publisher have it reviewed for accuracy, before publishing it, or is there no time for that? Who trusts anything they read in Forbes? Might the piece be actionable?

    1. 1.1

      Max, the author was presumably referring to the [U.S.-only?] AIA 35 USC 102
      “(b) Exceptions-
      (1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION- A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if–
      (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
      (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.”

      1. 1.1.1

        Yes, presumably. But what shocks me is that an article that purports to help its readers preserve and protect their IP is in fact leading them to give it all away, unprotected. The author of the piece purports to be an advisor to entrepreneurs. He should know better. He should stop writing such pieces till he does know better.

    2. 1.2

      What sort of people read such stuff?

      What sort of people write such stuff?

      Post written by Raad Ahmed

      Raad Ahmed is the Founder of LawTrades—a platform that connects businesses to world-class attorneys and a smart project management system.

      The article is atrocious. And certainly not merely the concluding sentence.

      Does the publisher have it reviewed for accuracy, before publishing it, or is there no time for that?

      Not “having time” is almost more an indictment than publishing this pablum in the first place.

      It does not appear to be attempting to give legal advice, but the “information value” is shockingly low for a entity like Forbes to allow this to appear under its banner.

      Even under its “Community Voice” (I presume that this is similar to a “Letters to the Editor” section). Forbes disclaims management and control and states that the material is controlled by the community group partaking in this ‘digital publishing platform.’ Here, that community group is YEC:

      Young Entrepreneur Council (YEC) is an invitation-only, fee-based organization comprised of the world’s most successful entrepreneurs 45 and younger. YEC members represent nearly every industry, generate billions of dollars in revenue each year and have created tens of thousands of jobs.

      1. 1.2.1

        an entity like Forbes

        … which is what? A magazine I’ve never read but maybe I used one in the woods to wipe myself with once upon a time.

        You expect “standards” from … Forbes?

        LOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture