Authored by: ukjaybrat on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:33 PM EDT

Corrections in the title please



---

IANAL [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ukjaybrat on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:35 PM EDT

Anything on topic should go in a separate thread



---

IANAL [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ukjaybrat on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:37 PM EDT

Provide links to said newspick



---

IANAL [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ukjaybrat on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:38 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:50 PM EDT

Personally, I'll postpone my celebration. This administration has come up with

many positive ideas, when it comes to implementation their record is not

stellar. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:50 PM EDT

Where does the truth fit in when dealing with the White House? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 02:08 PM EDT

I'm shocked.. Never thought I would see the day when real

reform would be discussed. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 02:15 PM EDT

This is something that the current administration is starting. Now with the

next election, we might get Republicans back into government, and they need to

look different. Since their profile is patriotic (I'll shudder thinking where

we'll end up when trying to beat the patridiocy of the current "Patriot

Act" interpretation but that's a different matter), they'll try getting

behind Apple and Oracle whose innovative records have "suffered" under

the Democratic administration's steps.



And if we have enough of a "lashback" from Obama's attempts to get

bipartisan support, we'll get so far out of sane charters that it won't be

pretty.



The current situation is that if you want Republican policies, you voted Obama,

if you want off-the-chart policies, you voted Republican, and you wanted

Democrat policies, you went abroad till next election.



If the next election does not move back to offering two sides of the political

spectrum, it may well end up sacrificing the middle class anyway. And in that

case, it's entirely possible that the patent system will get rewound to provide

the equivalent of technical middle ages: a few established parties get the royal

means to squander all progress by levying heavy penalties on newcomers.



So I am actually afraid of the current administration making good headway in

anything. The next administration might feel the need to distance itself from

that. Actually even if it turns out Democrat: after all, any president wants to

look like bringing in new impulses in order to be reelected. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 02:28 PM EDT

Is the problem really that you don't know what the words in the claim mean? I

think you know what the words mean. You just don't like the meaning because its

broad.



I got news for you. Any word that you don't like in the claim that is in a

glossary is going to have that very same broad meaning in the glossary.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 02:40 PM EDT

"where the battery for the engine is recharged by a passenger pedaling a

built-in stationary bicycle. But my patent claim is broader than that; I claim

A motor vehicle with a gas-electric hybrid engine comprising a storage battery,

wherein the storage battery is recharged using a mechanically-powered

generator. Its an accurate description, although it doesnt include the

specifics of what I invented. By describing the invention in terms of its

functions, that is, its general features, my patent omits what should be an

important limiting detail: my invention is impractically pedal-powered. "





Just because one embodiment involves the bicycle, that doesn't mean you didn't

invent the whole class of "mechanically-powered" generators. Indeed,

the specification even says, the generator is mechanically powered, FOR EXAMPLE,

by a passenger peddling, gerbil in a wheel, solar powered motor, water wheel

mounted in a cup holder, steam heated by the black vinyl seats in combination

with the green house glass windshield or any other mechanism for generating

generator cranking motion.



The whiners only "feel" the claim is overly broad because you thought

of it first and they want to copy the invention. Too bad, someone beat them to

it.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: albert on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 02:56 PM EDT

Dancing around the issues.



"1. Making Real Party-in-Interest the New Default." Whom does this

help? If I'm sued by a troll, what difference does this make? If I want to kill

a competitor, I can sell my patents to a troll. I'm free and clear. Where's the

recommendation for the troll to post a bond for the amount of damages expected?

(Bond refunded, minus costs and defendants legal fees, if they lose.)



"2. Tightening Functional Claiming." Good idea, but the examiners

aren't as stupid as most folks think. There are other reasons for issuing

bogo-patents.



"3. Empowering Downstream Users." Pure rhetoric. It needs to be made

illegal to sue end users. Don't see that idea here.



"4. Expanding Dedicated Outreach and Study." You know, the folks who

are actively involved don't need this. Really, who does?



"5. Strengthen Enforcement Process of Exclusion Orders."

Useless rhetoric. Where's the recommendation to withhold exclusion orders until

the patent(s) in question are validated, and all appeals exhausted?





Not much different than any other Executive Branch dances.











[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Stumbles on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 03:20 PM EDT

Its way to early to think that "thrill" your getting up your

leg is due to something that right now sounds positive, this

is after all the government we are talking about; I will

reserve any further comment for now.





---

You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 03:50 PM EDT

Too little. It is wallpapering around the fundamental problem.



The problem is this:



Patents do not promote progress. They impede progress in obvious

inventions by creating 20 year monopolies and with them their economic

rents that impede the growth of the economy (i.e. making other discoveries,

feeding people, distributing energy, creating jobs).



Patents go back to the time of Kings when monopolies were assigned to

random people of "good fortune"; i.e. "I am a friend of the King

so he gave me

this land with you surfs." Or "My Great Great Great Uncle helped the

King cut

off the head of the Old King, so I get to extract monopoly rents from you

Surfs".



Or today: "I thought up this great obvious idea, like Icons on a Hand Held



Portable Computer Device that was similar to a science fiction book I read

from the 1950's, so the King has randomly let me extract monopoly rents

from you surfs".



Patents on information technology, or on most biology are brain-dead wrong

public policy.



Obama's administration is too stupid to recognize this. But then so are all the



politicians who are extracting monopoly rents to stay in office from the earlier



generation of random "Kings" like Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers.



Some political economy. Who invented this?



Was this what our founding fathers envisioned when they used their

Enlightenment Values to push back the "Devine Rights of Kings".



-An Unhappy Anonymous Person [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: thorpie on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 04:58 PM EDT

Discussion about the recent Federal Circuit, en banc, decision regarding the CLS bank case indicated that the decision seemed to nullify many existing software patents. Exten sive Groklaw discussion here One hang over question with the decision was what action would the administration/patent office/congress take. Would they try to overturn the Federal Court decision to re-validate the patents already issued. Hopefully it seems that the answer is in. Hopefully this indicates that the Obama administration will do nothing to shore up the enforcability of existing software patents. However, I will remain waiting for the sting in the tail. I hope the outcome is not the re-validation of existing patents in exchange for more sensible laws going forward! Sleazier tricks have been tried ---

The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 05:07 PM EDT

One thing that's needed is, in addition to the stay of suits against end users while a suit against the manufacturer proceeds, is for suits against end users to be barred until a suit is filed against the manufacturer, and is also barred if the patent-holder has sued the manufacturer and not prevailed. Until the patent-holder sues the actual manufacturer, or if they sue and lose, any end user is entitled to an instant and automatic dismissal on the grounds that the suit is barred by law. No need to argue whether the end user infringed or not, no need for any defense against infringement, any end-user can end the suit with a single filing. There's little the patent-holder can do to prolong things, because the dismissal turns merely on the existence of an action or the ruling in an action. The most the patent-holder could argue is that their appeal of a loss should count for a suit being in progress, which saves them from dismissal but instantly stays the suit against the end user so it's not a big win for the patent-holder. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 05:51 PM EDT

It should be a near-absolute (not absolute, there are valid reasons why not)

requirement for a court to inspect the working prototype of the invention at the

markman hearing.



If the plaintiff can't produce the invention, then either the invention is

deemed not to exist, or the court is obliged to give more deference to the

defendant's version of the meanings.



Cheers,

Wol [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 08:05 PM EDT

In pondering the implications of eliminating functional claims, I tried to imagine whether I could describe some of my own programs in a patent application in such a fashion as to avoid ending up with simply a list of algorithms. Having so reflected, my preliminary conclusion is that it would be difficult to do so. If that really is the case, then perhaps the elimination of functional claims would in itself put an end to software patents. My reasoning goes like this: If I say only what the progam does, then the claim is merely functional. To avoid that, I have to describe how the program does it, and here is where problems begin to arise. Let's say it obtains data from a remote computer, via HTTP requests. Is it sufficient to say only that much? All it does is prescribe the use of an existing communications protocol, which seems pretty much functional, to me. One way to be more specific would be to describe the HTTP requests themselves. The problem here is that I can't give the exact requests, since URLs and data paramters are likely to vary; the best I can do is give prototypes of them, such as http://{remote-system-url}?id={object-identifier}. That turns out to be not much of an improvement, being little more than a description of a typical HTTP GET request. The only other method be being more specific that I can think of is to provide the source code that makes the HTTP request. The problem here is that the code is really nothing more than the implementation of one or more algorithms. Further, even if I were able to come up with a non-algorithmic claim that passed muster as not being functional, there is the problem (for the inventor) that the more specific a claim is, the more it has the intended effect of limiting the scope of the patent. For example wouldn't the HTTP specifications posited above allow others to work around my "invention" simply by using POST requests or another access method, such as ODBC? Whatever the case, this has to be a very bad prospect for the trolls. -Russ [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 08:05 PM EDT

The only way to fix stupid software and design patents - outlaw them entirely.



Rectangular tablet with rounded corners? come on, 3000+ year old design - who

gets to patent something that old? Apple of course - time for all of Apple's

stolen ideas that they patented to be invalidated - that means Apple would have

zero patents - they are not original thinkers. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 08:36 PM EDT

The follwing are quotes from PATENT ASSERTION AND U.S. INNOVATION - Executive Office of the President This document, which you should read, discusses the patent troll problem, while very carefully pussy-footing around "Some firms that own patents but do not make products with them, [but who] play an important role in U.S. innovation ecosystem." While that in itself could be a topic for discussion, that is not what I wish to discuss at this time. My issue is trying to parse the meaning of all of the following, which begins at the bottom of page 10 and ends at the top of page 12... Aggressive litigation tactics have also been adopted by some firms that practice their patents. The recent spate of patent litigation among large technology companiestermed the "smartphone patent wars" by the press  typifies this behavior... Ok - the Executive Office of the President recognizes there are smartphone patent wars going on. They recognize some firms that practice their patents adopted aggressive litigation tactics, the source of much discussion here on Groklaw. This is encouraging. What does the Executive Office of the President have to say about this? ...which also involves companies purchasing massive numbers of patents as a defense against of litigation, or as leverage in negotiating licenses with competitors. Hmm... of all the things they could have said about companies like Apple and Microsoft trolling, they have chosen to look at how companies defend themselves from aggressive litigation tactics, rather than the aggressors. Ok - let's see what else they have to say... Between $15-20 billion was spent on patent litigation and patent purchases in the smartphone industry from 2010- 2012. And in 2011, spending by Apple and Google on patent litigation and patent acquisitions exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public filings. Ok so far. The Executive Office of the President recognizes that these patent wars are so serious companies such as Google & Apple are now spending more on patent litigation and patent purchases then on R&D. So now feeling encouraged by this flash of insight by the Executive Office of the President let us continue... Indeed, Googles $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola, according to its own statements, was undertaken in large part to prevent patent suits from competitors. Ok. They see the lengths Google feels it had to go to defend itself. Let us continue... "Defensive" purchase of patents has come under scrutiny by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice for potentially anti-competitive behavior. Hey - wait a minute! Suddenly we are questioning defensive moves??? They are implying "Defensive" purchase of patents is potentially anti-competitive behavior?? But what about the aggressor? In one illustrative case, Apple and Motorola engaged in protracted legal wrangling over whether Motorolas royalty requests were reasonable given that the technology was "standard essential", i.e. required for a standardized technology to function. Yea - we know all about that one. Apple has been using Motorola's patent for years, but doesn't want to pay up. Instead they go on attacking Android all over the world. Now Motorola is Google, perhaps Motorola's pursuit of payment for its SEP could help with peace negotiations with Apple. So what does the Executive Office of the President have to say about all this? I'll give you a hint. They begin by taking an aside to explain what SEPs are to us. Ok, let's hear it, though we already know... In some technical standards-setting situations in which a patented technology is being considered for inclusion in a standard (such as Wi-Fi), a patent-holder may agree to offer licenses for the technology on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, in return for gaining access to the broad market that having a standard potentially creates. When standards incorporate patented technologies, owners of those patents benefit from expanded marketing and licensing opportunities, while the public benefits from products embodying the best technical solutions. However, a product that complies with such a standard will necessarily read on these patents, creating a potential incentive for patent owners to raise the price of a license after the standard is set. Ok - we got that. Now back to whatever point they are trying to make here... In early 2013, the Department of Justice and Patent and Trademark Office issued a joint policy statement on the implications of this phenomenon for enforcement at the International Trade Commission (ITC). Also in 2013, the FTC settled with Google, issuing a consent decree in which Google agreed to honor Motorolas prior commitments to license standard essential technologies on FRAND terms. Hmm... seems to be a bit of preoccupation about SEPs. There is also an implication that there was concern Google might have used Motorola's SEPs in some uncompetitive manner, because the FTC felt it necessary to extract a consent decree from Google to honor Motorolas prior commitments to license standard essential technologies on FRAND terms. Gee - I'm confused now. First they talked about the smartphone patent wars. They notice aggressive litigation tactics have been used by some firms. They recognize the situation is getting out of hand and patent & legal costs are exceeding R&D. Then they go on to talk about the company that is under attack from both Apple and Microsoft at the same time, the same that felt so threatened they had to buy Motorola mainly for the "defensive" patents, which happen to include SEPs. Are they implying this is an "Aggressive litigation tactic?" - because they don't mention Apple's ridiculous suites with patents of rectangles with rounded corners or Microsoft's troll tax on Android OEMs, so we can only speculate they are talking about Google when they say "aggressive litigation tactics". And that's it! The article then moves on to the next section, "Conclusion". The above is all they have to say about the smartphone patent wars. It seems to be all Google's fault for defending itself with Motorola's SEPs. Nothing about Apple's behaviour or Microsoft's. Do you suppose these two got to Obama? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 11:16 PM EDT

Just curious, I thought drastic spending cuts are coming. The US government is running out of money, etc. How will this be paid for? Aren't there people going hungry while money is put into this? Or is there always money for the well-to-do whose worst troubles are whether their patent is going to be granted or not? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 09:31 AM EDT

BREAKING: Why the Obama Administrations Actions Against

Patent Trolls Should NOT MAKE ANY Difference ~ Me



WHY because until you start on his friends at the copyright

area , this is moot.

ALL he is gonna do is hammer a few low flying fruit so his big

buds that carry on the insane copyright laws get a pass. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: th80 on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 01:07 PM EDT