Spamming Patent Tossed Out As Obvious
from the is-that-good-or-bad? dept
Slashdot points us to the news that a patent (6,631,400 -- which appears to be incorrectly titled "Statement regarding federally sponsored research or development.") on managing spamming efforts has been tossed out as obvious by the federal circuit, following a similar ruling at the lower level.What's most interesting here is that while some of the steps were thrown out due to prior art, the final step was tossed out due to "common sense." This is important. For quite some time, the courts seemed to insist that obviousness could only be proven through prior art. But something can be both obvious and new. In fact, the patent law has been clear that patents are supposed to be for things that are both new and non-obvious to those skilled in the art, but the question of obviousness was rarely discussed, as everyone just focused on the "newness." That's finally been changing, in large part due to the Supreme Court's KSR ruling that reminded people that obviousness is important, and that it's separate from newness. Since then, both examiners and the courts seem willing to put a bit more common sense into determining obviousness, and that's absolutely a good thing.
Of course, some of you might feel that having a patent on a spamming technique is a good thing, since it could be used to prevent others from spamming, but that didn't seem to be happening anyway, so let's just be happy that a bad patent has been rejected.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ksr, obviousness, patents, spam
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can we make this officially Rant Friday?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I haven't seen an article I can really go off on in a while, so somebody else needs to pick up the slack until I do....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey you, get off my lawn ! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question:
B) Patents expire anyway so it's less about old patents and more about new patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tech Dirt Lemming Punks
Stupid Punky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
obviously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: obviously
Are you implying the court knows nothing about patents?
"Evidence of Common Sense: The district court held on summary judgment that KSR style "common sense" would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the iterative step (D). On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that finding - holding particularly that the finding of common sense does not require "explication in any reference or expert opinion.""
[ link to this | view in chronology ]