Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

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

1. 3

   Re: “The F-35 and its IP Issues (Source: Lawyers, Guns, & Money)”
   Too bad folks who write things like this don’t check with a real government procurement law expert and explain the very different way IP is handled in government procurement contracts and infringement claims, instead of leaving that hanging.
   1. 3.1

      But Paul, the piece attracted more than a hundred comments. I suppose that, these days, the “Quality” of journalism is measured by the number of reader comments. Ergo, this was Top Quality journalism, notwithstanding that the journalist writer is (whether carelessly or deliberately) pig ignorant about the subject of the piece.
      1. 3.1.1

         I cannot tell if you were sincere in your redefining quality as quantity.
         1. 3.1.1.1

            It’s been said that quantity has a quality all its own.
            1. 3.1.1.1.1

               blanket statements are usually wrong
2. 2

   Have a look at the Buccafusco et al Paper, on adjusting patent term in line with the general welfare. The authors are not the first to suggest adjustments in patent term to fine-tune patent term to different technical fields. The unprecedented times we are just starting to work through offer an opportunity to make better use of the patent system to nurture speedy investment in those fields that most require innovation (antibiotics?) so as to do the most to lift quality of life for the most people.

   If we don’t, our beloved patent system will attract even more public criticism.

   What’s not to like, about the idea?
   1. 2.1

      RE; “What’s not to like about different patent terms for different technologies?” For starters, the lobbying orgy that would occur in Congress to see who gets the longest terms from such legislation. Then, thousands of disputes and appeals over which such term length pigeonhole the various claims of millions of future patents should fall into.
      We have had dozens of lawsuits over disputed patent terms even under the current U.S. patent term legislation, which is byzantine enough with its various confusing additions and subtractions to and from a consistent 20 years from earliest priority claim.
      1. 2.1.1

         +1

         Adding in, the concept of ‘divide and conquer’ is downright pernicious to a strong patent system.

         Patent systems are meant to be agnostic to the ‘flavor of the day.’ Tomorrow’s advances are not — and cannot be — known a priori, and that is why there is (also) a definite need for a ‘wide open welcoming gate.’
         1. 2.1.1.1

            +1 Paul. +1 anon.

            Equal treatment for all . . . innovations.
      2. 2.1.2

         Paul, I remember the immediate post-War Valensi case under the UK Patents act of 1949. The court gave the inventor a term of 36 years. He got the maximum 10 year extension under the “War Loss” provision and then another 10 under the Inadequate Remuneration provision. Valensi invented colour TV. There is no law of nature that decrees that new legislation must inevitably be “Byzantine”. In theory, Members of Parliament are free to give the lobbyists the brush off, any time they choose to do so, for example when the general welfare requires it.
         1. 2.1.2.1

            You do realize that your “in theory” is woefully inadequate in reality, eh MaxDrei?

            Human nature, being what it is and all.
            1. 2.1.2.1.1

               Not sure about “human nature”. But the pressure on the media is to publish corporate Press Releases as the work product of professional journalists and the pressure on politicians is to present as their own work product that of the corporate lobbyists. I wish I knew, how to relieve that pressure.

               So, yes, we agree. In your words, woefully inadequate.
         2. 2.1.2.2

            Never heard of Valensi, but he was outdone by Jerome Lemelson getting dozens of patent terms extended roughly that long with serial continuations and divisisonals under the pre-1996 patent term law. Not even needing special legislation, just PTO management docket pendency control failure.
            1. 2.1.2.2.1

               “…just PTO management docket pendency control failure.”

               That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
            2. 2.1.2.2.2

               I sense a blaming of the wrong entity here…
               1. 2.1.2.2.2.1

                  ? How?
                  1. 2.1.2.2.2.1.1

                     Come now Paul, you know full well that Lemelson is a hot-button name.
3. 1

   ” Sony’s PlayStation Group Applies for Patent of a Robot Friend Who Will Play Games and Watch Movies with You”

   A Stepford Wife redux for a modern age.

Comments are closed.