Patent case before Supreme Court could have major implications for software

Nov 7, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: MyFox St. Louis

With the technology industry looking on, the Supreme Court on Monday will explore what types of inventions should be eligible for a patent in a pivotal case that could undermine such legal protections for software.

Comments
1 - 3 of 3 Comments Last updated Jan 21, 2010
Power

Pulaski, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 8, 2009
 
The patent system is for the rich. You can't do it without a proxy lawyer acting in your place.

Worse, you don't need a working model or proof of anything. You just need an idea that is a string of words on paper.

Then those who invent nothing sit back and wait until someone actually does do the inventing to have a working model then sue them blind.

Without working models to prove anything and only patenting an idea, this prevents the progress of technology because those who can't build get patents and those who do build get sued.

Patenting an idea only means it will never be built or used.

That is mass manipulation because the patent holder refuses to build it either.

When the patent system becomes nothing but a lock everybody else out weapon it is not a patent office, it is a method of cornering the market while doing absolutely nothing.

It should change to a build it and use it or lose it scenario because as is, the patent office serves little to no purpose but to totally quash inventing and that is antithetical to having a patent.
Andrew F

Camas, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 18, 2009
 
Power wrote:
The patent system is for the rich. You can't do it without a proxy lawyer acting in your place.
Worse, you don't need a working model or proof of anything. You just need an idea that is a string of words on paper.
Then those who invent nothing sit back and wait until someone actually does do the inventing to have a working model then sue them blind.
Without working models to prove anything and only patenting an idea, this prevents the progress of technology because those who can't build get patents and those who do build get sued.
Patenting an idea only means it will never be built or used.
That is mass manipulation because the patent holder refuses to build it either.
When the patent system becomes nothing but a lock everybody else out weapon it is not a patent office, it is a method of cornering the market while doing absolutely nothing.
It should change to a build it and use it or lose it scenario because as is, the patent office serves little to no purpose but to totally quash inventing and that is antithetical to having a patent.
You have a mistaken impression of what is required for a patent. The USPTO does not allow ideas/concepts to be patented. It requires you to reduce the invention to practice (also referred to as teaching). That means, it has to be described in enough detail, that somebody skilled in the same art could reproduce the invention.

Additionally, the supreme court's KSR ruling in 2007 also raises the standard for 'quality of the description' for a patent to be upheld by the court if challenged.
Resamith

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 21, 2010
 

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••