Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court to Rule on 'Obvious' Patents
davidwr writes "News.com reports the U.S. Supreme Court will take up KSR v. Teleflex, a patent case in which the defense is arguing the patent is obvious and should be thrown out. The case hinges on a 1952 provision of patent law. Interestingly, several major IT firms are supporting the defense."
Yes it does actually. It has ruled in the past about the meaning of a comma in some sentence of our tax code. That's how narrow it can get. In fact, the SCOTUS tend not to overrule previous rulings but rather distinguish a current case from a previous case. One of the goals of our legal system is for it to be predictable. SCOTUS tries to uphold that as much as possible. Part of the reason the Federal circuit was created specifically for patent laws is to prevent forum shopping which has a tendency to make patent cases unpredictable. IANAL.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Of course now that I've typed it up, I can find no reference to the story.
No wonder. You mixed the person. That story is usually associated with Columbus. Hell, there's even a Wikipedia entry of the thing.
You would need a Reader's Digest anecdote to find something older :)
There is no such thing as good luck. There is only misfortune and its occasional absence.
KSR was accused of patent infringement on an obvious patent by Teleflex for pedals.
The appeals court ruled that the Teleflex patent stands because even a combination of off the shelf parts used in a novel way is nonobvious.
KSR Disagrees and is appealing to SCOTUS.
Cisco and Microsoft are coming in on the side of KSR, they believe "off the shelf in a novel way" is too low of a standard for patents.
Assuming they make a ruling and don't shove it off to the Congress, a ruling for KSR will have a wide ranging positive impact. Microsoft and Cisco will not have to spend as much patenting the obvious, and dealing with patent litigation, which costs a lot. Additionally it might free up resources for the Patent Office, perhaps allowing them a more thorough interpretation of those that do go to the office. Of course the patent office may not like this, it might decrease the yearly fees they take from prospective patenters.
Aren't you a little out of date?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
The petition for writ of certiorari is an interesting read. From the description at news.com.com.com.com you'd get the impression that this is a clear case of the Federal Circuit court not applying clear standards that the SCOTUS has already laid out, but the petition makes it clear that the Federal Circuit believes the SCOTUS's previous decisions create an unworkable framework for deciding "obviousness".
The SCOTUS basicly assumes that an invention is obvious when it is an aggregation of preexisting inventions. The holder of such a patent needs to demonstrate that the combination was unforseen or that it creates synergies beyond what would be expected. The Federal Circuit says that this goes against the concept of presuming that issued patents are valid. Every invention is obvious once it is disclosed, so the only way to shift the burden of proof off of the patent holder is to require that the infringer demonstrate clear evidence that the combination was suggested in technical literature prior to the patent issuing. The SCOTUS assumes that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" is capable of solving problems through novel combinations of existing technology. The Federal Circuit assumes that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" isn't capable of creative problem solving.
Neither one of these standards does justice to the concept of "obvious". It would be nice to see the SCOTUS create a workable framework for deciding obviousness rather than simply reiterating its previous decisions.
That's an entire "paragraph" from the article. Notice how the main sentence goes nowhere? Essentially it says "the court has ruled that." Ruled what? All in all, this whole situation is appalling. Obvious patents are appalling and TFA is appalling.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I have a feeling the above post was written specifically to show how ignorant many of the moderators are. Plus 5 "insightful" - hah. Obviousness is and has always been a valid challenge to patents in this country, and to the best of my knowledge all countries. It's a specific requirement that in order to be patented, an invention must be non-obvious, and many court battles have been fought over whether or not a particular patent was obvious and thus invalid. So that's just... a rather bizaare comment, however you look at it.
The issue in this case is, however, narrow. The federal appeals court that gets ALL patent appeals (and this is a problem in its own right) has set forth a rather narrow and difficult criteria for what constitutes obviousness, resulting in many things that are 'obvious' in the normal meanings of the word being ruled 'non-obvious' legally, and the appelants are trying to get the supremes to over-rule that and impose more sane criteria.
I wish them luck, but even a good ruling here is unlikely to significantly reduce the burden the patent office is imposing on the general good.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Well it was in the subject line. What more do you want?
I have no sig yet I must scream.
No, the first way was fine, even if it invalidated the second sentence. The Supreme Court does, on occasion, make rulings that really can't be applied to anything.
The two examples that actualyl spring to mind are, interestingly enough, quite infamous. One was the 2000 election ruling, where the majority ruling included language that made it explicit that their decisions were setting no precedents whatsoever. The other was a recent case where a local government was planning to sieze private land and give it to a developer, where SCOTUS actually said (to much (deliberate?) misunderstandings later), that it, a national body, isn't in a position to judge what is locally in the public interest, and therefore determine whether this particular siezure was constitutional or not.
In one case SCOTUS was saying "You can't second guess us in future about these issues, we might rule the other way if it happens again, nuh nuh", in the other "How the fuck should we know? Stop asking us these questions, take some responsibility for once."
BTW, IANAL.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
See, this is why we're having so much trouble with patent trolls and DRM: people have a fundamental misunderstanding about what that clause in the Constitution is all about!
First of all, it does not "mandate" anything; it merely allows it. "The Congress shall have power to" enact copyright and patent law, but it is not obligated to do so.
Second of all, the clause is explicitly designed "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," not to "protect IP!" Indeed, if it were designed to protect "IP" (a term that did not exist when the Constitution was written; they simply called it a "monopoly") it wouldn't have had a "for limited times" clause!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
shelling out $100,000 in legal fees
That figure is WAY on the low side, chuckle. Try two million dollars.
Note that that is two million dollars for each side, four million total, not one million each. Google has many links documenting that figure. The original source appears to be an American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association 2003 economic survey report.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Take a municipality that's starting to struggle, a large employer or two has left, the median income has dropped, and there's not much hope for a turn-around.
The community is probably fine, and can provide basic services, but that's about it. No community center. Minimal parks. Fees for trash pickup, leaf pickup, etc.
A developer comes and presents a plan that would dramatically change the prospects of that city. A strong core of residential and commercial locations; new growth - a chance for the city to be reborn, to be vibrate again.
Is that worth it? Does the potential justify the taking of private property? (local example - new shopping center has led to a massive improvement in a local community. Did the benefit of 10k+ residents and 100k+ consumers outweigh the costs so 10-20 owners? In this case, yes)
The Court essentially said that such decisions should be locally made by ruling that there isn't anything federal to restrict those actions. What caught everyone by surprise is that there were minimal local rules about this, and that was a shame. It's been going on for quite some time, but didn't get significant media time. The ruling brought the issue up to mainstream attention where it needed to be.
You gave the example of non-blighted areas being taken - that goes against my personal views of when ED should be used. The fact that loopholes exist should be blamed entirely on the elected officials that created them.
There are times when the public benefit from a project should require that private owners sell their property at a fair price. That process needs to be clear, open and fair to all sides. It should only be used when the benefit is significant for that local community, the benefit is needed by that community and the chance of harm or stagnation by the community is likely if the action is not taken.
-- Ravensfire
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"