GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
4 edits |  Patent law on patenting processes needs a major overhaul
The 1st problem with patents in general and with the whole process is that you would need a couple lawyers and a couple engineers spending months researching old patents every time you created or modified a product. And the second problem is that the patent office allows the creation of patents based on general ideas rather than on specific products. Even after spending months doing research, most product developers and their support staff still wouldn't have the foggiest idea if they violated a patent or not.
»www.visto.com/news/releases/06.1···even.asp
To get just a little taste of how obtuse the patented processes are, just look at the 3 patents involved in this particular case from the news item. How a jury comes to a logical decision is beyond me.
»patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars···,085,192
»patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars···,023,708
»patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars···,708,221
If you are having a problem viewing the patent office TIFF images that are part of patent filings, here is a link to a web page that has links to plugins for IE and FF. I used the alterna Tiff plugins.
»www.uspto.gov/patft/help/images.htm
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: Patent law on patenting processes needs a mjor overhaul
A quick read of the abstracts suggests this is nothing more than off-site backup. If that patent gets pursued, every company using this idea is vulnerable. The applicants should be tarred and feathered. They did no research.
--
Televideo ergo sum.....I watch TV, therefore I am. |
|
rhdcheme
join:2006-11-18
Lorton, VA
·Cox HSI
| said by bigunk  :A quick read of the abstracts suggests this is nothing more than off-site backup. If that patent gets pursued, every company using this idea is vulnerable. The applicants should be tarred and feathered. They did no research. Abstracts do not define the scope of patent protection. Patent claims do. |
|
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA | Fair enough. You may well be more schooled in patent law than I. No problem here, but am I right as far as what I have written?
--
Televideo ergo sum.....I watch TV, therefore I am. |
|
rhdcheme
join:2006-11-18
Lorton, VA
·Cox HSI
1 edit | said by bigunk :Fair enough. You may well be more schooled in patent law than I. No problem here, but am I right as far as what I have written? Not knowing what was presented in court - I don;t know. But a US patent carries with it the presumption of validity (i.e., the imprimatur of the patent office having granted it after an examination).
In patent litigation, the patent owner will be confronted with the best prior art available by the infringer(s)/defendant(s) in court. Based on what the article says, it seems that the judge/jury did not believe that the patent claims were invalid. That is why the judge ruled the way he did, assuming that the judge is all up there (if you know what I mean).
These cases usually end up on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where US district courts judges are routinely reversed. Trial judges with no technical background are incapable of handling these technical cases, IMHO. |
|
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| OK, fair enough. I guess I was taking the approach of reason as opposed to court proceedings. Funny, I'm going to see my lawyer today to get his computers working. Christmas eve stops no litigator along his chosen path in life, eh?
--
Televideo ergo sum.....I watch TV, therefore I am. |
|
