RSSTech Giants Interested in Patent Case
By Ed Oswald | Published June 26, 2006, 5:22 PM
With patent litigation becoming a bigger issue in the technology industry, a decision Monday by the Supreme Court to hear a case on what could be considered an obvious invention -- and thus not patentable -- could hold significant repercussions.
Several tech companies have taken interest in a patent case involving KSR International and a company called Teleflex. At issue is patents surrounding gas pedal technology that were held by Teleflex. While an initial federal court ruling threw out Teleflex's patents, calling them "obvious," an appeals court overturned that decision.
KSR then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, accusing the federal courts of interpreting the laws on "obvious" patents incorrectly. The court has far too lenient a standard for patentability, KSR argues. Supporting its case, technology giants Microsoft and Cisco have filed a joint amicus brief on KSR's behalf.
"If the test for patentability becomes too lenient and allows routine variations on prior inventions to be patented anew, the public's free use of information in the public domain is clouded by a new monopoly," the companies argued.
"Moreover, the public receives no value in the disclosure of minor variations of inventions already known and disclosed in the prior art." Both companies said they have had to take steps to protect themselves from questionable patents.
No date has been set for hearings on the matter, although the court has agreed to receive amicus briefs from several interested parties.
...
Patent laws are a good thing, and essential
to stimulate new technology.
But it's obvious that -in recent years- U.S.
patents and copyrighting has gotten out of
control and become counterproductive.
...
The Computer Rodent
...
Score: 0
|"Patent laws are a good thing, and essential
to stimulate new technology."
explain yourself rat,
i don't see how patent laws stimulate anything but the patent holders ego.
Score: 0
|Because companies will not invest in trivial things like cures for diseases, medications, devices that improve quality of life (artificial limbs, organs, mobility devices) etc etc etc unless there's a good chance they can recoupe their investment in order to continue doing business. I guess you don't care about that, but it's the American way. So deal with it. If you don't like it, run for office and change it, or just shut up.
Score: 0
|"companies will not invest in trivial things like cures for diseases, medications, devices that improve quality of life (artificial limbs, organs, mobility devices) etc etc etc unless there's a good chance they can recoupe their investment"
trivial things eh?
yah, sounds american, what else can we extort to get rich.
investing in something is always a gamble, all patents do is increase the odds in their favor.
investors already go sue crazy when they lose money on their investments. maybe they should think a little before they invest.
anyway, don't read my post if you don't like what i have to say.
Score: 0
|You're taking this in the wrong direction. I'm not saying litigation isn't getting totally stupid. It definitely is. That was caused by shortsighted application of the patent laws. Patents, trademarks and copyrights are sound ideas. If you owned a business you would understand. Obviously you don't (or you won't very long). Fire is good too. Fire applied to gasoline trucks is not. Keep the discussion in context and we'll all turn out alright. I apologize for the "shut-up" remark. That was out of line for me.
Score: 0
|thx
"shortsighted application of the patent laws"
my point exactly, good idea being badly applied
Score: 0
|Not just american, any country with patent laws agrees to this to some extent.
It is the realists view of the world. Most people will not expend effort without reward, and will only expend as much effort as necessary. Utopia is a nice idea; however, it only works with perfect people.
Score: 0
|You know, I grow tired of this BS by BN. They Continually give bad or missing info. Here is another such article.
*The Court will address whether a basic statutory condition for patentability in the United States - that claimed subject matter be "nonobvious" -- has been improperly weakened over the past 23 years by a specialized intermediate appellate court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. James W. Dabney, a partner at New York's Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, is counsel of record for the petitioner, KSR. Professor John F. Duffy, of counsel to Fried Frank resident in Washington, D.C., is also centrally involved in the Supreme Court effort.*
*Although the KSR case itself involves mechanical technology (adjustable accelerator pedals for cars and trucks), the broader issue concerns the fundamental standard of patentability, which governs the availability of patent protection in all cases and for all technologies. The question presented in the KSR case is thus of practical importance to any company that may apply for, or is potentially affected by the grant or the assertion of a United States patent.*
its non-obvious, according to other sources..
*Patent lawyers say the case could lead to a major s*** in U.S. patent law, which requires inventions to be "non-obvious" in order to be patentable.
"Obviousness is the core issue of over 90 percent of all cases," said Harold Wegner, a patent lawyer with the firm Foley & Lardner.
Most patents contain combinations of previous inventions. And if the high court agrees with KSR, it would raise the standard for what can be patented.*
It's getting so I have to cross check everything for not only validity but for spelling and continuity and cohesion. Are the Betanews editors getting sloppy or what?
Score: 0
|Did you even read the article above? The other sources you copied contain the exact same points, just more detail about who (lawyers) has been involved.
Patents being overturned for simply being "obvious" is the whole issue referenced in the article above, and nobody ever said Teleflex's patent was obvious, except KSR, who is now appealing to the Supreme Court. And both Microsoft and Cisco warn that the USPTO's assessment of what is patentable should not be too easy.
There is no "bad" info above, stop trolling.
Score: 0
|Hey dumb ass, I did read the article. are you illiterate or just stupid?
*While an initial federal court ruling threw out Teleflex's patents, calling them "obvious," an appeals court overturned that decision*
Maybe you can't read? What the **** does that say, dork? It is cleary CONTRADICTED by other articles, you dimwitted bafoon. I did research, and this isn't the first time this has happened, you imbecile. So don't go ranting about me being a troll when its obvious you are as stupid as they are. The article was NOT complete, nor was it accurate.
That's all I was trying to say, you idiot.
Why don't you go play with your toys, this article is above you, punk.
Score: -1
|"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." --Elbert Hubbard
Score: 0
|I can see your in good form :)
Score: 0
|Just let things go and keep it g rated. Just use facts and put people down without actually putting them down, make them read the comment and say "WoW I really am wrong" but I lose all respect for you when you start calling people names because they say something wrong, hey, not everyone is right all the time and I'm sure your wrong every now and then too. Another thing, you have way too much time on your hands.
Score: 0
|Looks like someone's trying to get his account removed. I think he got jealous of JD. ;)
Score: 0
|Thank you Nate!
Score: 0
|