I'm going to patent "having sex with my wife to produce offspring with brown hair".
(We both have brown hair, and so do our kids, so it's a working method and product, right?)
Of course, then I'll get challenged on similar grounds, back off the "method", and hopefully get the patent for just brown hair itself.
If I can get this to fly (and I'm pretty sure I can, the way patents get approved these days) I figure I can squeeze the world for a cool couple billion.
It's not about censorship. It's about ... ... chocolate chips! ... (Yeah, I like that.) ... It's about chocolate chips and cookies and candies! Who doesn't love that?
Senshikaze, I completely agree with you. The distinction is between inventor and non-inventor, not independant inventors.
During a development project, I ran across no less than a dozen real grossly questionable patents. Of them, only two had ever been reduced to an actual working invention; all the rest were concepts and drawings only.
What the quotes tell me is that I could challenge my standing against the ten that were pipe dreams, because I was an actual "inventor". The other two, that had acutally been reduced to a working invention by real inventors would still be in my way.
Senshikaze, I completely agree with you. The distinction is between inventor and non-inventor, not independant inventors.
During a development project, I ran across no less than a dozen real grossly questionable patents. Of them, only two had ever been reduced to an actual working invention; all the rest were concepts and drawings only.
What the quotes tell me is that I could challenge my standing against the ten that were pipe dreams, because I was an actual "inventor". The other two, that had acutally been reduced to a working invention by real inventors would still be in my way,
"Imagine, though, how much bigger that contribution might be had the Patent Office been able to process the applications that it has still not even looked at. There are more than 700,000 of these."
Imagine it?!? I can't wait!!! $2000 to replace my $500 smart phone. The inability to innovate. Time frozen at the current state of technology because nobody can navigate the thicket.
I'll never have to upgrade! I'll have to waste time learning new features! What an awesome world!
There have been cases mentioned on this site about private companies getting patents on Federal research, so it could be a good thing that the Federal Government pre-empts the private sector in this way...
... Presuming of course that those patents remain free to the public in perpetuity ...
"Until the Federal Circuit’s Mallinckrodt decision, an unbroken line of Supreme Court and lower court precedents held that the patentee’s patent right over a product that the patentee sold (or that a licensee authorised to make a sale sold) ended at the point of sale."
...
"The Federal Circuit’s Mallinckrodt doctrine has not avoided criticism as allegedly stating legal rules that contradict Supreme Court decisions. Thus in 2007, the United States Solicitor General filed an amicus curiae brief in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,[8], stating, as to the first prong, "The test adopted by the Federal Circuit in Mallinckrodt thus reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role and scope of the patent-exhaustion doctrine. ... The court of appeals’ approach cannot be reconciled with those [Supreme Court] precedents,"[9] and more generally that the Federal Circuit’s Quanta opinion based on Mallinckrodt “rests on the same erroneous understanding of patent exhaustion that infuses the Federal Circuit’s approach to this area of the law."
Long story short, that single ruling in Mallinckrodt v. Medipart is in direct conflict with an unbroken line of prior precedents set as high as the Supreme Court.
Good point. Since the 944 were initially lumped into two suits before being split out, they may have a leg in court to roll it back into the two lump classes.
944 defendants can share the expenses, thus allowing them to hire top attorneys at a fraction of the individual cost. Given these kinds of cost/benefit, the 944 can stand and fight like an army. They might even be able to counter with a class action lawsuit.
1 defendant, on the other hand, is in way over his head and is more likely to settle.
Re:
(untitled comment) (as Analyst)
Then let Jesus come to court and sue for His rights.
Gema just created a lose lose for themselves (as Analyst)
Youtube to Gema: Since you have argued in court that it is "our choice", we have chosen to stop taking the videos down.
Gema to Youtube: But ... but ...
There is no cost to the economy (as KeithV)
Even if consumers spent the reported $100B on counterfeit goods, that is still what the consumers spent. That went into the economy.
Now, if consumers spent less than $100B, including down to $0, they still would have spent that on something else.
No net difference TO THE ECONOMY.
I'm gonna patent:
(We both have brown hair, and so do our kids, so it's a working method and product, right?)
Of course, then I'll get challenged on similar grounds, back off the "method", and hopefully get the patent for just brown hair itself.
If I can get this to fly (and I'm pretty sure I can, the way patents get approved these days) I figure I can squeeze the world for a cool couple billion.
It's not about censorship (as KeithV)
You have got to be kidding me... (as KeithV)
Re: Confused
Re: (as KeithV)
During a development project, I ran across no less than a dozen real grossly questionable patents. Of them, only two had ever been reduced to an actual working invention; all the rest were concepts and drawings only.
What the quotes tell me is that I could challenge my standing against the ten that were pipe dreams, because I was an actual "inventor". The other two, that had acutally been reduced to a working invention by real inventors would still be in my way.
Re: (as KeithV)
During a development project, I ran across no less than a dozen real grossly questionable patents. Of them, only two had ever been reduced to an actual working invention; all the rest were concepts and drawings only.
What the quotes tell me is that I could challenge my standing against the ten that were pipe dreams, because I was an actual "inventor". The other two, that had acutally been reduced to a working invention by real inventors would still be in my way,
Re: Re: (as KeithV)
What I want to know is how you can get an Oscar nomination for blatantly lying.
It's because Steve is the new Messiah (as KeithV)
By divine right, Steve can do and say what he wants, and we all have to go along with it.
(untitled comment) (as Keith V)
Imagine it?!? I can't wait!!! $2000 to replace my $500 smart phone. The inability to innovate. Time frozen at the current state of technology because nobody can navigate the thicket.
I'll never have to upgrade! I'll have to waste time learning new features! What an awesome world!
Re: (as KeithV)
I could actually be a good thing (as KeithV)
... Presuming of course that those patents remain free to the public in perpetuity ...
... Which of course they won't ...
Re:
From the wikipedia page:
"Until the Federal Circuit’s Mallinckrodt decision, an unbroken line of Supreme Court and lower court precedents held that the patentee’s patent right over a product that the patentee sold (or that a licensee authorised to make a sale sold) ended at the point of sale."
...
"The Federal Circuit’s Mallinckrodt doctrine has not avoided criticism as allegedly stating legal rules that contradict Supreme Court decisions. Thus in 2007, the United States Solicitor General filed an amicus curiae brief in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,[8], stating, as to the first prong, "The test adopted by the Federal Circuit in Mallinckrodt thus reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role and scope of the patent-exhaustion doctrine. ... The court of appeals’ approach cannot be reconciled with those [Supreme Court] precedents,"[9] and more generally that the Federal Circuit’s Quanta opinion based on Mallinckrodt “rests on the same erroneous understanding of patent exhaustion that infuses the Federal Circuit’s approach to this area of the law."
Long story short, that single ruling in Mallinckrodt v. Medipart is in direct conflict with an unbroken line of prior precedents set as high as the Supreme Court.
I say defendant has a case.
Re:
Re: someone needs to create a website for them
Why individual suits
944 defendants can share the expenses, thus allowing them to hire top attorneys at a fraction of the individual cost. Given these kinds of cost/benefit, the 944 can stand and fight like an army. They might even be able to counter with a class action lawsuit.
1 defendant, on the other hand, is in way over his head and is more likely to settle.
Re: Re: You sort of have to read the whole story (as Analyst)
- Football and the challenge of the fight stokes the fire in spirit of the many.
- Science serves the many, but truly only inspires the few.
Which will win when the popular vote is tallied?
More comments from Keith >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Keith.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt