or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ash471

In what way is it messed up?  It works great.  Last time I checked, the US has the most robust entrepreneurial environment in the world. The purpose of the patent system is to encourage entrepreneurs.  If anything I think what is messed up is how the media castigates the patent system when it has no clue how the system works.  How can people who know so little about the system think they know whether it is messed up?     There is a lot of ranting and raving about how much...
Actually it makes perfect sense.  See post 28.  The patent office and the courts have different standards.  The different standards sometimes lead to different outcomes.  There are good reasons for having different standards, but the explanation is complicated.
This absolutely false.  No patent lawyer would ever try to improperly influence a patent examiner.  You cannot even talk to an examiner unless you schedule an appointment and put an interview summary in record saying what was discussed. Going to lunch is beyond preposterous.  Both the patent attorney and the examiner would get fired for offering/taking free lunches where there is a pending case between the two.     There is a lot of corruption in the world, but U.S....
What?  Apple didn't have to patent this.  If all they wanted was to prevent people from patenting it, it could have just released its product (i.e., made it public).  Secondly a person copying the iPad can't sue Apple unless they themselves obtain a patent.  If they are copying, they can't get a patent because the invention would already be public, else how could they copy it?  Your argument is illogical on its face.   Apple should patent anything novel and non-obvious...
hmmmm, the new york times publication can be used as prior art in a reexamination proceeding, but I don't think the discussion at the conference can be a basis for the rejection. Ex parte reexamination is only based on patents and printed publications (See MPEP 2258 and 37 C.F.R. 1.552)   This does illustrate why we have many different procedures and why the patent office can't be expected to find everything.  How in the hell would an Examiner know if someone showed a...
ummm did you read the brief.  It says the claims of the patent have been rejected in a reexamination proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.  That is not invalidity.  Invalidity is a defense to infringement and is defined in 35 U.S.C. 282.  The patent office does not ever invalidate patents because the invalidity statute does not apply to proceedings before the patent office. 
Good call Rogifan.  I'm glad to see there is at least one other person that understands patent law.  Reexamination is not invalidation.  Anyone that knows anything about patent examination can tell you that an office action rejecting the claims is expected and is not predictive of the outcome of the reexamination.    For those of you that think this patent has been invalidated, I'll give you a football analogy.  It's like an opposing football team being the first to score...
If you understood patent law, you would know this makes perfect sense.  The law says a court has to presume a patent is valid.  Invalidity requires "clear and convincing evidence."  The PTO NEVER invalidates a patent.  The patent office examines that patent and applies the novelty and obviousness standards (35 USC 102 and 103).  They can and often do have different outcomes.  And any person knowledgable in patents would agree that the standards should be different (for...
  Regarding MS....I suppose it is possible that MS could succeed, but not likely.  Microsoft is what it is today because of corporate IT.  MS was a lucky bastard that was at the right place at the right time with a shitty product.  That shitty product (windows) needed an IT department to make it work and then that same IT department needed a shitty product to justify the existence of an entire team of IT people.     The problem for MS is that the consumer has no need for...
LOL....race to the bottom. Nice
New Posts  All Forums: