Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] USPTO Takes Wrong Route to Solving Its Problems, Patent Trolls Thrive

  • Subject: [News] USPTO Takes Wrong Route to Solving Its Problems, Patent Trolls Thrive
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:40:07 +0000
  • Followup-to: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • User-agent: KNode/4.3.1
Hash: SHA1

Patent Office Working to Streamline Application Process

,----[ Quote ]
| In a Mercury News piece at 
| SiliconValley.com, writer Chris O'Brien 
| details a conversation he had with U.S. 
| Patent and Trademark Office director David 
| Kappos. Even Kappos admits the system is 
| broken. "We are trying to work our way 
| through a broken system," he told O'Brien. 
| The goal is to improve the average time 
| between application and approval from the 
| typical three and a half years (which is 
| how long Facebook waited for approval of 
| its news feed patent) to a single year.


Post-Peer Review

,----[ Quote ]
| The first change is that it looks like the 
| Patent Office is going to open up the 
| patent approval process in a pilot program 
| by allowing for a sort of peer review using 
| evidence of prior art or prior patents to 
| be submitted to disqualify a current patent 
| application filing.


Claim Deconstruction: New Patent Language Compendium a Boon to IP Lawyers

,----[ Quote ]
| Last year, The Prior Art covered Garrod's 
| side project, an unusual one for a PubPat 
| attorney: he owns a patent-holding company, 
| Bedrock Computer Technologies, which has 
| enforced a software patent by suing several 
| technology companies in East Texas. 


Sawyer Opines on the Eastern District of Texas

,----[ Quote ]
| My friend Sawyer is back with another post 
| in his series of talking about software 
| patent issues.  As I mentioned before, 
| Sawyer is a real person named after our 
| intrepid friend in LOST (I havenât seen it 
| this week â no spoilers please) who has 
| agreed to help us navigate the parallel 
| universe known as software patent land.  
| Iâm channeling Sawyerâs points of view as a 
| public service announcement since heâs 
| uncomfortable being named publicly â these 
| are his words, not mine.  Todayâs post is 
| on the famed âEastern District of Texasâ 
| (EDTX), one of the most popular places in 
| the United States for patent litigation. 


Commons Sense

,----[ Quote ]
| One of my recurring frustrations in making 
| my case against gene patents is the failure 
| by some to grasp the argument I am trying 
| to make regarding the nature of "the 
| commons". Perhaps I have been unclear, or 
| maybe the approach I am taking to property 
| law and justice is too far afield from 
| those more frequently made to be 
| immediately understood. Yesterday, however, 
| I gave a guest lecture in an ethics course 
| for ICT students (software programmers, 
| mostly), and gained a lot from the 
| experience. These students not only grasped 
| the argument, but embraced it, and helped 
| to clarify a subtlety that I need to 
| elaborate upon in defining the "commons by 
| necessity" that I believe genes and other 
| parts of the universe belong to.
| Briefly, to summarize, I argue that the 
| justice of property rights derives from the 
| logical and practical ability of people to 
| enclose a space, and the need for a rival 
| to use violence to dispossess a possessor 
| of the space. Thus, property rights in land 
| and movables are grounded in these brute 
| facts. There is no such grounding for 
| intellectual property rights. Moreover, 
| there are parts of the universe that cannot 
| be justly owned, and IP claims over these 
| "commons by necessity" are unjust. These 
| are parts of the universe which cannot be 
| held exclusively by anyone, as a matter of 
| brute fact. Examples include: the laws of 
| nature, radio spectra, and genes which are 
| de facto unencloseable. My thanks to 
| Stephan Kinsella who helped me to realize 
| that this applies, actually, to all ideas, 
| and thus makes all IP law a similar 
| incursion on an unencloseable commons by 
| necessity.



How Hard Is It To Realize That One-Click Buying Doesn't Deserve A Patent?

,----[ Quote ]
| Amazon and Jeff Bezos (who a decade ago was
| a founder of a project to bust bogus
| patents) have aggressively fought to keep
| the patent alive. And so we've now entered
| the fifth year of the review process, which
| seems to involve some rather annoyed USPTO
| patent examiners, who are fed up with what
| appears to be Amazon simply dumping
| busywork on the examiners to avoid a final
| rejection of the patent.


Questions for Microsoft

,----[ Quote ]
| You can imagine my laughter when Microsoft
| was declared by the courts to have violated
| a patent in their OOXML file formats. The
| patent owners, i4i of Canada, asked the
| courts to have Microsoft remove the
| features that were found to be in violation
| of i4i's patents.
| Now, what about all the customers that
| chose to use Microsoft's Office product
| just to get the OOXML feature? If they
| suffer loss because of this Microsoft
| compensate them? What about the documents
| they created with OOXML, will they have to
| be converted? What about the people that
| refuse to let Microsoft remove the patent
| violating code to protect their investments
| and documents? Could i4i sue them?


Amazon Refuses To Give In; Appeals One-Click Patent Rejection In Canada


Amazon appeals rejection of its "One Click" patent

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index