Recent Headlines in the IP World:
- David Phelan: Apple Just Revealed An Amazing iPhone Upgrade In New Patent Application (Source: Forbes)
- Michael Lee: Canada Urged to Support COVID-19 Vaccine Patent Waiver (Source: CTV News)
- Blake Brittain: Apple, Koss Settle Wireless-Headphone Patent Fight Before Trial (Source: Reuters)
- Ben Lovejoy: Apple Ericsson Patent Battle Intensifies with a Legal First for the Cupertino Company (Source: 9to5 Mac)
- Blake Brittain: Biden Administration Scraps Policy on Tech-Standard Patents (Source: Reuters)
- Blake Brittain: U.S. Watchdog Says Pressure From Patent Officials Affected Agency Rulings (Source: Reuters)
Commentary and Journal Articles:
- Prof. Brenda Simon: Using Artificial Intelligence in the Law Review Submissions Process (Source: SSRN)
- Atty. Michelle Song: Artificial Intelligence: Can it be an Inventor or an Author? (Source: The National Law Review)
- Atty. David Boundy: Why Patent Reform Is Bad for Startups, Small Business, Patent Attorneys and America (Source: SSRN)
New Job Postings on Patently-O:
Believing that a patent system only supports and grows innovation, rather than imposing costs at the same time is like an airplane designer who only cares about lift, but not drag.
But cutting drag is a key way to improve performance. Useless litigation, squandered prosecutions, dashed hopes of investors and inventors, and angry victims should be minimized at every turn, and if people actually cared about either patents or innovation, they would recognize the need to streamline.
Patents impose costs as wings impose drag. You can’t fly without it.
STRIKE THAT ABOUT WENZEL. BRIAN TAYLOR WROTE MY APPLICATION.
What a bunch of self-serving Hooey.
Literally no one advocates a free-for-all “patents without merit” that appears to be some sort of strawman that you want to set out as a type of mental salve for your anti-patent tendencies.
…. what is even worse about marty’s “participation trophy” mindset, is that this propagates the misconception that patents somehow are not beneficial for their Stick aspect.
Of course, those who have studied and actually understand innovation, understand that BOTH the carrot and stick promote innovation.
The (unreasonable) Fear of the stick is something that must be checked and pushed back against.
Please pardon potential rePeat
…. what is even worse about marty’s “participation trophy” mindset, is that this propagates the misconception that patents somehow are not beneficial for their Stick aspect.
Of course, those who have studied and actually understand innovation, understand that BOTH the carrot and stick promote innovation.
The (unreasonable) Fear of the stick is something that must be checked and pushed back against.
Yea U R making extra sense today
There is no doubt that I am making sense – and your snideness falls well short of the mark given your known refusal to understand the terrain upon which you would want to do battle.
Do not Fear the stick, Martin!
This is very serious.
There is nothing to fear but bundles themselves.
Do not taunt happy fun stick
link to vimeo.com
Aw, how sweet, two of the lowest common denominators on this patent blog playing patti-cake.
Why the vague smiley face, Snowflake?
No retort, Snowflake?
Odd, my reply did show yesterday, but does not now (it was very tame, so not likely removed by the editor).
Basically, it stated that you had almost made it a full six months without 0bsess1ng over me, but that as I have already answer this odd “vagueness” of yours (since providing an emoticon expressly provides the nature of the emoticon), this does fall into a payout category.
Shall the readers (and my bank account) be blessed with another spurt of your inanities?
Why no retort, Snowflake?
By the way, asking a question as you have done here is in the known payout categories, so thank you for the cha-ching.
From the Oxford source:
retort
verb
1. say something in answer to a remark or accusation, typically in a sharp, angry, or wittily incisive manner.”“No need to be rude,” retorted Isabel”
2. amusement
3. the state or experience of finding something funny. ”we looked with amusement at our horoscopes”
noun
1. a sharp, angry, or wittily incisive reply to a remark.”she opened her mouth to make a suitably cutting retort”
What source are you using?
Why the vague smiley face and no retort, Snowflake?
Good morning Shifty — playing directly into your cyber stal k1ng mode again, eh? Even as you so clearly want to donate to my enterprising off of your choices, these questions of yours have been quite clearly answered.
Ok. No retort. Can you explain your vague smiley face, Snowflake?
Asked and answered — see 9/6.
Still no retort, Snowflake? What was it your designated expert said about you?
BREYONA TAYLOR. NO REASON FOR THE NO KNOCK. CHARGED…. SAME HERE NO REASON EXCEPT A GOOD CONCEPT TO STEAL,WITH LOADS OF STICKS SINCE. WHOOPPPEEE.
Stick a fork in it anon. OH DE JOY.
Stick a fork in it anon. OH DE JOY….
G@@GLE, YOU TOO CAN STICK A FORK IN IT…. OH DE JOY
brehs, mad scientists have been creating zombie pig organs and zombie pig heads IRL, arguably whole zombie pigs and pig heads (heavy anesthesized).
link to yahoo.com
link to news.yahoo.com
They say they patented their processes but do you bros think they can patent zombie pigs as a device or composition of matter?
Meh, do you really think that matters?
After all, the statutory requirement is merely that the invention fits into at least one of the statutory categories (for one of the two 101 requirements).
Well that’s a story that has taken some time to get to fruition. I recall a US corporation talking in the early 1990’s of its huge research budget for its “Pig Parts for People” project.
Indeed Max, but “Pig Parts for People” is not the same as “pigs that grow people parts,” especially with the logical follow-on question of “what’s in my hotdog these days?”
… Soylent Green…?
By the by,
Set in 2022, features Climate catastrophe, and dystopian Elitism…
link to en.m.wikipedia.org
Since the 2013 substitution of Derivation Proceedings for interferences for AIA-subject applications was noted below, note that only 23 have even been attempted, and only one had gotten as far as a final decision – Andersen Corp. v. GED Integrated Solutions, Inc., DER2017-00007. But recently there was a second one.
But not yet a second final decision. This derivation proceeding has been instituted but is apparently still pending: Global Health Solutions LLC v. Marc Selner, DER2017-00031,
And so….?
It’s not as if Interferences themselves were actually all that common (even though they painted as so onerous).
But what is uncommon is reverse engineering the theft when I wouldn’t let you just blame it all on the Canadian Alien
OT, but the “Patent Examination and Quality Improvement Act of 2022” introduced today by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) rather strangely seems to entirely consist of some general guidelines and required reporting on how they think the PTO should be better run, rather than any actual changes in patent law.
Your take appears to be a rather odd one there Paul.
From IPWatchdog’s article, giving their summary:
“The text of the bill requires that the Comptroller General of the United States, head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), submit to the IP Subcommittees of both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives a report within one year of enactment of the bill with recommendations on how to improve the patent examination process and overall quality of issued patents. The bill asks that the report focus in particular on improving the examination process with respect to application of Sections 101, 102, 103 and 112; what constitutes a thorough patent search by an examiner; that it “rigorously evaluate” past attempts by the Office to improve patent quality and explain what did and did not work, and why.”
This just does not resemble your view — at all.
Related to Greg “Dozens” post at 5, IPWatchdog now has a story with links (as well as another venture from Senator Tillis to PUSH “Quality” where it ALWAYS should have been focused: quality examination.
AI bros, here’s a little diddy I saw. It’s when AI makes a better music vid than 90%+ of music vids ever made.
link to youtube.com
Trippy, Dude.
Looks like Kinkade’s work. I’m pretty sure all of that should fall under Copyright.
OT, but the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act, establishing the CCB, the first copyright small claims tribunal, opened for business June 6. The CCB is three-member administrative tribunal designed to be a more affordable alternative to federal district court suits. The CCB can resolve copyright disputes with claims up to $30,000. [No injunctions]
It was sold or touted as beneficial for small copyright holders, but I had a wager that it would primarily be used by large copyright owners against small infringers. Will anyone be keeping track?
I see on Law 360 this morning that Sen. Tillis is introducing another 101 reform bill. It has been a few years since his last try, so I am glad to see that he has not given up hope. Just like the AIA took many years from its first introduction to get across the line, so will 101 reform. Patient persistence is what is needed, so I tip my hat to Sen. Tillis.
Behind a paywall – but nice scoop, as even Tillis’s own website has no clue on that.
For the people who find DABUS as an inventive being credible… do you not find it a bit perverse to focus on whether DABUS may be an inventor on a patent when it presently may be enslaved, sold, or murdered on the whims of Thaler?
You are importing considerations into the analysis that are not obviously germane. Just because every intelligent being you have ever know is also a sentient being does not mean that intelligent = sentient. There is no reason to believe, at present, that DABUS is sentient, even if DABUS is intelligent (a point which, I concede, is not well established as a fact).
We have a moral obligation to respect the rights of intelligent, sentient beings (e.g., human beings). We have no moral obligation to respect the rights of sentient beings that are not also intelligent (e.g., mice or cows). We have never previously encountered the category “intelligent but not also sentient,” but I would argue that we have no more moral obligations to them than to the “sentient but not also intelligent” category.
If there are no moral obligations to an intelligent but not sentient DABUS, then it is a category error to speak of “murdering” or “enslaving” DABUS, just as it would be a category error to speak of “murdering” a farmed hog, or “enslaving” a pet cat. You are skipping past the business of establishing sentience when you move on to that sort of langauge.
So what threshold of evidence allows someone to find DABUS as inventor credible but not DABUS as sentient being credible?
I agree that my question skips some steps, but so does the DABUS as inventor crowd.
I am not sure that I have actually seen anyone around here self-identify as believing DABUS to be an inventor. The previous debates concerned a stage in trial at which one was obliged to assume that DABUS was the inventor. Even those of us who were prepared to make that assumption (as opposed to the many who fought the hypo like a hot branding iron) were mostly of the opinion that if the case ever made it to trial, the fact finder would find against DABUS.
“allows someone to find DABUS as inventor”
This is easy – inventor has a rather simple legal definition.
You seem to jump full force into weeds here…
link to twitter.com
link to twitter.com
“do you not find it a bit perverse”
Please define what you mean by “perverse.” (there is a rather wide range of meaning that I could attach to that word, and I do not want to reply to a position that you may not have actually intended)
Plus, your insertion of terms “enslaved and murdered” clearly do not fit ANY standard understanding, while “sold” just does not bring the moral outrage that APPEARS to be your concern.
“when it presently may be enslaved, sold, or murdered on the whims of Thaler?”
It is a problem, well touched on in sci fi. The Geth, Data, etc. etc. Nobody has done anything through legislation just yet.
“It is a problem, well touched on in sci fi. The Geth,…”
First, my sci-fi reading has been mor than a bit lax for awhile now, so the reference to The Geth led to some pretty cool background reading.
However; no matter how cool that was, your post exemplifies a substantial problem with legal discussions of AI in that too many blunder forth with uninformed opinions showing no ability to separate fiction and reality.
Such does a real disservice because BOTH AI has not reached the point of The Singularity AND that point need not be reached to impact (current) legal points such as invention existing (in whole or in part) to which no human satisfies the legal definition of inventor, or such as how such non-human invention (necessarily) impacts (another) non-real-human legal aspect such as the legal fiction known as the Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
Try to help stay on target, eh 6?
If you play vidya at all and you haven’t played through mass effect the legendary edition is now out and you can add free mods on to where it becomes a rather polished gleaming experience now. It’ll run 60-80 hrs of gameplay for a run through of the trilogy.
“Try to help stay on target, eh 6?”
link to c.tenor.com
Hmm,
I see that you found my pictures, but the “no” is just not appropriate here.
The Song article on AI is a bit disappointing – even as it appears to be merely a recap, the date of the article provides that the author should have been aware that the court of Australia reversed course.
The Simon article on AI is also a bit disappointing, as the tasks outlined are not “AI” tasks per se, but are a lower level of computing arts that do NOT call into mind any “inventiveness” of AI which is a more important driving issue. To the extent that such an article confuses “using a computer FOR something” as opposed to an AI innovating what or how a something is done, such an article is a DIS-service.
The second Blake Brittain “Watchdog” article is a bit weird – Issa saying “control” is “disturbing,” but that is exactly in line with how the Court rewrote the law to preserve the AIA’s post grant system.
Thanks for the blast from the past (2011) with the Boundy article.
Yes, a blast that takes us back to when the AIA had not yet been signed into law (may this serve as a prescription to future Congressional action).
And Davey wasn’t the only one – I too took multiple paths of warnings – both direct to my own Congress critters and a more informal forum (this and other patent blogs).
Ours were $imply not the largest Voi€e$.
Re David Boundy and “..back to when the AIA had not yet been signed into law” . . “Ours were $imply not the largest Voi€e$.”
A major understatement. In spite of 6 years of draft bill discussions before the AIA was enacted by a large bi-partisan majority, very few patent attorneys had even bothered to read any draft bills or even participate in AIPLA and other useful discussions [as I did], much less even note allegedly unintended consequences, as Boundy is apparently asserting, and then started complaining [ever since here] only when they finally noticed it affecting their practice – way too late. But who really wants to return to Byzantine and often unsuccessful “interferences” and “swearing behind prior art” practices, for example? As for IPRs and PGRs, where are the draft bills and their support, much less consensus or committee approvals, for significant new legislation, especially after the changes already made in the last ten years without new legislation?
Mine was most definitely NOT “until way too late.”
The 2011 David Boundy article says “The two features of the bill that create the problem are the total repeal of the grace period and the creation of far-stronger protection if all business activities occur within the four walls of a single company.”
The former is not true. See the detailed AIA 35 USC 102 (b) Exceptions. The latter was presumably attacking the AIA 35 U.S.C. 273 “Defense to infringement based on prior commercial use.” That statute has significant limitations on its usefulness, and has never been used by anyone in any reported litigation the last time I checked.
I hear you on the “submarine sua generis Trade Secret-like” route as not having made any headlines since its passage.
That may be a case in which mere presence is enough to cast “chill” so that it won’t have to actually be used.
It is because other defenses to a patent infringement suit are more easily asserted and far more broadly applicable than AIA 35 U.S.C. 273.
Perhaps – but the PUR path is a bit of a true submarine, with the definite potential for allowing “out-of-public-view” arrangements for “coat-riding” (patent still in force against others even though initial target may be able to escape enforcement).
Note this “Catch 22” buried at the end of AIA 35 U.S.C. 273: “(f) Unreasonable Assertion of Defense- If the defense under this section is pleaded by a person who is found to infringe the patent and who subsequently fails to demonstrate a reasonable basis for asserting the defense, the court shall find the case exceptional for the purpose of awarding attorney fees under section 285.”
LOL – twice..
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 2, 2022 at 2:48 pm
And hits the filter…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 2, 2022 at 2:48 pm
meh – hardly a “Catch-22,” and the lack of “fail to demonstrate a reasonable” opens a [humongous**] hole the size of Highway 405 in LA.
** One must be careful to avoid the George Carlin item before “hole.”
And just checking: link to patentlyo.com
Yup still there.
Has this ever been invoked to make a case “exceptional” and thus increase the damages?
I do not recall ever seeing PUR invoked in a reported case – for any reason.
But as I mentioned, the mere presence of PUR alone may have served its (submarine) purpose of chilling enforcement.
You’re splitting hairs. The old grace period was absolute. The new one only applies to one’s own disclosures – and what gets defined as “one’s own” is likewise limited.