Comments on: Obviousness and patents http://www.sindark.com/2007/05/09/obviousness-and-patents/ Temporarily Torontonian Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:04:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: . http://www.sindark.com/2007/05/09/obviousness-and-patents/#comment-139465 . Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:40:07 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2007/05/09/obviousness-and-patents/#comment-139465 <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21526370" title="Intellectual property: Patent medicine | The Economist" rel="nofollow">In recent years, however, the patent system has been stifling innovation rather than encouraging it.</a> A study in 2008 found that American public companies’ total profits from patents (excluding pharmaceuticals) in 1999 were about $4 billion—but that the associated litigation costs were $14 billion. Such costs are behind the Motorola bid: Google, previously sceptical about patents, is caught up in a tangle of lawsuits relating to smartphones and wants Motorola’s huge portfolio to strengthen its negotiating position (see article). In recent years, however, the patent system has been stifling innovation rather than encouraging it. A study in 2008 found that American public companies’ total profits from patents (excluding pharmaceuticals) in 1999 were about $4 billion—but that the associated litigation costs were $14 billion. Such costs are behind the Motorola bid: Google, previously sceptical about patents, is caught up in a tangle of lawsuits relating to smartphones and wants Motorola’s huge portfolio to strengthen its negotiating position (see article).

]]> By: Three strikes rules for internet piracy http://www.sindark.com/2007/05/09/obviousness-and-patents/#comment-82754 Three strikes rules for internet piracy Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:08:26 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2007/05/09/obviousness-and-patents/#comment-82754 [...] protecting the rights of IP owners rather than the public at large. We would be a lot better off if patents were granted more selectively, if licensing of them was mandatory, if copyright was less well defended and expired sooner, and if [...] [...] protecting the rights of IP owners rather than the public at large. We would be a lot better off if patents were granted more selectively, if licensing of them was mandatory, if copyright was less well defended and expired sooner, and if [...]

]]> By: R.K. http://www.sindark.com/2007/05/09/obviousness-and-patents/#comment-15478 R.K. Tue, 15 May 2007 17:21:49 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2007/05/09/obviousness-and-patents/#comment-15478 "Faced with a duly unimpressed USPTO examiner who rejected its new 1-Click patent claims as 'obvious' and 'old and well known,' Amazon has taken the unusual step of requesting an Oral Appeal to plead its case. And in what might be interpreted by some as an old-fashioned stalling tactic, the e-tailer has also canceled and refiled its 1-Click claims in a continuation application. As it touted the novelty of 1-Click to Congress last spring, Amazon kept the examiner's rejection under its hat, insisting that 'still no [1-Click] prior art has surfaced.' The Judiciary Committee hearing this testimony included Rick Boucher (VA) and Howard Berman (CA), both recipients of campaign contributions from a PAC funded by 1-Click inventor Jeff Bezos, other Amazon execs, and their families." <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/15/002238&from=rss" rel="nofollow">From Slashdot</a> “Faced with a duly unimpressed USPTO examiner who rejected its new 1-Click patent claims as ‘obvious’ and ‘old and well known,’ Amazon has taken the unusual step of requesting an Oral Appeal to plead its case. And in what might be interpreted by some as an old-fashioned stalling tactic, the e-tailer has also canceled and refiled its 1-Click claims in a continuation application. As it touted the novelty of 1-Click to Congress last spring, Amazon kept the examiner’s rejection under its hat, insisting that ‘still no [1-Click] prior art has surfaced.’ The Judiciary Committee hearing this testimony included Rick Boucher (VA) and Howard Berman (CA), both recipients of campaign contributions from a PAC funded by 1-Click inventor Jeff Bezos, other Amazon execs, and their families.”

From Slashdot

]]> By: Milan http://www.sindark.com/2007/05/09/obviousness-and-patents/#comment-15211 Milan Thu, 10 May 2007 23:13:39 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2007/05/09/obviousness-and-patents/#comment-15211 This is also being <a href="http://www.metafilter.com/61020/The-end-of-oneclick-patents" rel="nofollow">discussed on Metafilter</a> This is also being discussed on Metafilter

]]> By: Milan http://www.sindark.com/2007/05/09/obviousness-and-patents/#comment-15205 Milan Thu, 10 May 2007 21:54:33 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2007/05/09/obviousness-and-patents/#comment-15205 <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/10/2016213&from=rss" rel="nofollow">Vonage May Have Way Around Patent Disputes</a> Vonage May Have Way Around Patent Disputes

]]> By: Milan http://www.sindark.com/2007/05/09/obviousness-and-patents/#comment-15136 Milan Wed, 09 May 2007 17:26:38 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2007/05/09/obviousness-and-patents/#comment-15136 More on this case: <a href="http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_JTNNPDV" rel="nofollow">The Economist</a> (Subscription required) <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/business/01bizcourt.html" rel="nofollow">The New York Times</a> More on this case:

The Economist (Subscription required)

The New York Times

]]>