Corrine Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Via Scot at https://twitter.com/#!/ScotFinnie/statu...799864234942464 Have to see to believe | RT @jr_raphael: Chart of who's suing whom in mobile tech. http://t.co/PGodFwH I think my head just exploded.As Scot said, you have to see it to believe it. Long URL: http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/m...hic-of-the-day/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securitybreach Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Wow, that is something. Thanks for sharing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 This is just plain nuts. The patent laws in this country have got to change or there will be nothing left for anyone except extremely wealthy people and their lawyers. The rest of us will not be able to afford to buy anything at this rate...the cost goes up to consumers ... I see no real upside for the world or consumers in the long run when it comes to how patents are currently handled in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securitybreach Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 This is just plain nuts. The patent laws in this country have got to change or there will be nothing left for anyone except extremely wealthy people and their lawyers. The rest of us will not be able to afford to buy anything at this rate...the cost goes up to consumers ... I see no real upside for the world or consumers in the long run when it comes to how patents are currently handled in this country.I completely agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corrine Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 Perhaps not appropriate for this thread, but I'm asking anyway: What part of the patent system do you think needs to be changed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Perhaps not appropriate for this thread, but I'm asking anyway: What part of the patent system do you think needs to be changed?Oh, I don't know ... all of it?!No, maybe not all of it, but there are some areas were some deep thinking by truly intelligent people needs to be done. People who see the end from the beginning. 1. patents submitted and ultimately approved are not specific enough - too far reaching2. software patents are ludicrous (you can't patent ones and zeros)3. prior art. patents should be disallowed if there is prior art and a second part to this, maybe anyone should be able to submit possible prior art to the patent office by patent number, since the patent office doesn't seem to have the time to go looking as much as they should.Those are just 3 areas that I think need changing....just off the top of my head without giving it any real thought.Maybe others can expand on it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corrine Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 Full disclosure: I am most definitely not an attorney. However, I worked in the Patent side of the house at Kodak for over 40 years (although the last 5 or so years were in the IT area rather than directly involved with patent application filings and prosecution). Any knowledge I have is strictly based on what I picked up while working with patent applications, patent prosecution, and hearing what the attorneys were talking about. Having been out of the environment for the past couple of years, I'm absolutely certain my memory is foggy. Obviously, then, my views are tainted by the corporate environment and the researchers we worked with. The patent system certainly isn't perfect. One major problem faced prior to the requirement for publication at 18 months is "submarine" patents. Lemelson was famous for this -- delaying patent issuance by filing filing continuation, divisional, and CIPS (continuation-in-part) applications.Comments based on suggested areas needing fixing:1. patents submitted and ultimately approved are not specific enough - too far reachingMost certainly, the goal of the applicant is to have the allowed claims as broad as possible. From my recollection, the claims being too broad was a frequent objection issued by the USPTO, requiring amendment to narrow the breadth of what was claimed. Restriction requirements are also frequent -- this is where the Patent Examiner indicates that there is more than one invention claimed in the application, listing groups of claims falling within different independent inventions. As a result, an election is made as to which group of claims will remain in the application. Often, this results in the filing of "divisional applications" where another application is filed with the claims that were not elected in the original. (Note that the divisional application claims the same priority/filing date as the parent.)2. software patents are ludicrous (you can't patent ones and zeros)There is a lot of controversy about software patents. I agree that, although you cannot patent ones and zeros, the combination of ones and zeros wherein they are used in a unique and unknown manner is what I understand is patentable. That said, with the rapid change in technology, the high cost of obtaining patents as well as the cost in enforcement, provides questions on the value. 3. prior art. patents should be disallowed if there is prior art and a second part to this, maybe anyone should be able to submit possible prior art to the patent office by patent number, since the patent office doesn't seem to have the time to go looking as much as they should.That is part of the patent system. In fact, if it an attorney does not disclose prior art that s/he is aware of, it would result in losing his ability to practice law. In addition, applications are published at 18th months after filing. At that time, prior art (whether it be published articles or other patents) can be submitted to the USPTO with a request for reexamination. In addition, in the event an attorney learns of prior art following the issuance of a patent, a reissue application is filed in which it is indicated that the application contained claims broader than the inventor had a right to claim.An interference proceeding could also be instituted between two patent applications filed within a close period of time. The "senior party" has the advantage in having the earliest filing date. Many years ago, I got to sit in on the taking of the testimony in an interference proceeding. It was fascinating. In this instance, Kodak was the senior party. The inventor was from Australia and was flown in to be questioned in the proceedings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Thanks Corrine. That was a great response. If things went as they should, maybe folks wouldn't be so upset about them (the patent situation).But as you noticed with the cost and time (18 mos) of getting patents submitted and reviewed in the first place, as well as the rapidly changing software environment, patenting ones and zeros definitely does not make sense at all.And the patent trolls buying up all the patents is just an extension of how to keep lawyers rich by basically creating a whole new business model that would be funded by the taxpayers in court yet again. It reminds me of the 70s/80s when they ramped up having fleets of lawyers in corporate America. More than ever before. But as was noted by Danny DeVito in Other People's Money, we have ours because they have theirs, but if you use them they just screw up everything.Now on to the general patent process that I object to above every thing else.Parallel EvolutionWhat happens to all those who worked just as hard but are left with nothing when someone else comes up with the same thing, about the same time. Or someone finds out about it and finds a way to get the information from the original inventor.There are great concerns because it is the person who get their patent in first. Not necessarily the person who invented first. Due to this fact many if not most items patented are/could have been invented by others, elsewhere on the planet and are not patented for one reason or another, lack of resources to do so, or lack of money, or...Like my grandfather, who may very well have invented vertical blinds before anyone for his young wife, as a gift, He thought it was foolish to patent something that was simply for his wife to make her job easier. Or it could have truly been parallel evolution. And he may have had good reason for thinking so since my great grandfather who along with his partner, had invented something very important having to do with the gasoline engine had some bad things happen as it can when greed becomes an issue on one side or the other.My great grandfather found out that his partner was trying to make it to DC alone ahead of the time they were to go together. He found this out after his partner had already left by land to get to DC to the Patent office on his own to patent it in his name alone. My great grandfather, trying to beat him to DC went by sea, unfortunately. My great grandfather died in a freak storm on the way.I assume his partner felt free to patent it and did so since he would have no worries of anyone coming after him since none of his family likely knew anything of the details of their partnership or the work the two were doing in any detail. My grandfather was later adopted by another family.When the Wright Bros did what they did that great day on the Outerbanks, they were not the only or the first to do so as it turns out. But they are still considered the fathers of aviation.How many inventors were forced out of business by greedy rich men after being robbed of their inventions by some means. Now it would be considered impolite to speak of such things because the companies have gone on to do many things that are considered good. But what of those men who were cheated because of them?If there were no patents, everyone would be free to do what they want with what they build. And so can others. And then people wouldn't be getting hurt either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corrine Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share Posted August 24, 2011 No doubt there is parallel evolution of ideas. However, the technology patents I'm thinking about are not likely to be invented by someone in their garage on their free time. I believe that the U.S. patent system is still based on "first to invent" not "first to file". Inventing constitutes more than just getting a brainstorm. It also requires "reduction to practice" -- whether that be in the form of documentation (i.e., inventor notebook) or a working model. No doubt, dating and witnessing are critical to providing first to invent. Like my grandfather, who may very well have invented vertical blinds before anyone for his young wife, as a gift, He thought it was foolish to patent something that was simply for his wife to make her job easier. And he may have had good reason for thinking so since my great grandfather who along with his partner, had invented something very important having to do with the gasoline engine.My great grandfather found out after his partner had already left (by land to get to DC to the Patent office on his own to patent it in his name alone). My great grandfather, trying to beat him to DC went by sea, unfortunately. My great grandfather died in a freak storm on the way.How sad! It is unfortunate that your great grandfather did not know that he could have petitioned the USPTO to be added as a co-inventor, providing proof. In fact, his scoundrel of a partner could have been convinced (coerced ) to provide such a petition. Although things are obviously different now, I recall more than one instance of a spouse signing patent application papers because their spouse was deceased. The inventor's name appeared on the issued patent with (deceased) after the name.If there were no patents, would it be worthwhile for companies to have multimillion dollar research facilities only to be required to give everyone the results of their research? More likely, there would be increased industrial espionage in some fields because companies involved in R&D would keep their findings secret (think Coka-Cola recipe). In fact, there are inventions that companies do not file patent applications on because they are non-detectable technology. In other words, they could not prove if others were benefiting from their invention.(OT: This discussion is bringing back memories. While outside with the dogs a few minutes ago, I remembered the name of the form used for submitting prior art to the USPTO -- the PTO 1449 Information Disclosure Statement form. In addition to prior art being discussed in the patent application, patents and published articles are listed on that form. Sometimes we would have problems getting copies of obscure journal articles to submit to the USPTO.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securitybreach Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Wow that is something Fran, it sounds like your great-grandfather was a smart fellow. I do not really have a comment on what I hate most about the patent office, I personally think everything should be opensource; knowledge should be available to everyone. Yeah I know, a geeky hippy Great discussion Corrine and Fran, I have enjoyed reading it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corrine Posted September 16, 2011 Author Share Posted September 16, 2011 Although not related to mobility, per se, it does follow the fun discussion LilBambi and I had on the patent system: Obama signs patent overhaul legislation - Computerworld.Here's a snippet from the article: U.S. President Barack Obama has signed the America Invents Act, the first major overhaul of the U.S. patent system in about 50 years.The America Invents Act, passed 89-9 by the U.S. Senate last week, would allow new challenges to patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It allows third parties to file a challenge to a patent within nine months of it being awarded.The new law also creates a new challenge for finance-related business-method patents by companies that have been sued or accused of infringing them. The new mechanism for challenging business-method patents will apply retroactively to those patents, and the law opens an eight-year window for the USPTO to review business-method patents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securitybreach Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Although not related to mobility, per se, it does follow the fun discussion LilBambi and I had on the patent system: Obama signs patent overhaul legislation - Computerworld.Here's a snippet from the article:Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.