Supreme Court to Rule On 'Obvious' Patents

vocaro writes "The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to rewrite the standard of what makes a patent 'obvious.' In a case before the court, brake manufacturer Teleflex is accusing a rival, KSR International, of violating its patent on a brake assembly. Large patent holders, including Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco, have submitted briefs supporting KSR, saying that true innovators can have a patent held up against them that reflects nothing more than an obvious combination of preexisting elements, then be told they have to leave the market or pay royalties. The court appears to be on KSR's side, saying that Teleflex's invention would have been obvious to an individual of reasonable skill. During oral arguments, Justice Breyer observed, 'It looks to me at about the same level as I have a sensor on my garage door at the lower hinge ... and the raccoons are eating it. So I think of the brainstorm of putting it on the upper hinge.'"

Comments

Slashdot patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh no.. Will Slashdot lose its patent on dupes?

Patented already

[IWannaBeAnAC]

'It looks to me at about the same level as I have a sensor on my garage door at the lower hinge ... and the raccoons are eating it. So I think of the brainstorm of putting it on the upper hinge.'

Too late dude, I already patented that.

obvious

[Rudisaurus]

During oral arguments, Justice Breyer observed, 'It looks to me at about the same level as I have a sensor on my garage door at the lower hinge ... and the raccoons are eating it. So I think of the brainstorm of putting it on the upper hinge.'"

Ah -- the old "raccoons eating the hinges" analogy.

Re:Yeah for the raccoons

[eric76]

I'm wondering just what the hinge is made of if raccoons can eat it.

Re:Yeah for the raccoons

[flyingsquid]

Gotta love the analogy with the raccoons. Sounds like a judge finally gets it.

In related news, a Supreme Court Justice is being sued for patent infringement by DoorCo, a manufacturer of garage doors and door sensors...

Re:Yeah for the raccoons

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, what about the patent on the raccoon genes? I daresay this Justice is treading on dangerous ground. Is he saying he's got these raccoons on his property without a license?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, the raccoon is there legitimately. What right does this judge have combining the raccoon and the garage door sensor?

Alright, alright, say the honorable man isn't participating in the theft of any physical inventions. But, hell! If this here raccoon situation is entirely imaginary, that sounds suspiciously like "intellectual" property to me.

I just can't see any other possibilities there, and I'll be damned if he gets away with it.

Re:Yeah for the raccoons

[Harmonious Botch]

"Gotta love the analogy with the raccoons. Sounds like a judge finally gets it"

We finally got a judge that was smarter than a racoon.

Re:Yeah for the raccoons

[RajivSLK]

Umm, I think raccoons ate your reading comprehension.

Dear Sirs..

[quakeroatz]

I am the lawyer representing Procyon Lotor and instruct you to cease any and all mention of his "Top Hinge Detectomatic Mechanism" in your case. My client is the sole innovator of this device and trust that you will respect his pending patent.

Yes we have prior art in the form of a maple limb which you will see was chewed in precisely the same manner as said invention.

Sincerely,
Miguel Sanchez

Has to be said

[bmo]

I for one welcome our lower hinge sensor eating raccoon overlords.

--
BMO

Re:Yeah for the raccoons

[Dun Malg]

Nevertheless, the fact remains that they ARE obvious... Therefore, the current test is rubbish.

To whom? Just saying so doesn't make it so.

Christ in a sidecar. If I had a nickel for every time I wished I could access my email account from somewhere other than the computer lab back in the mid 80's, I'd have enough money to pay a goon to knock some sense into your head. Mere portability of an existing system is not a novel fucking innovation, you dumbshit.

If you have evidence showing that the NTP patents are really obvious, then maybe you should have tried to get hired on as a consultant to RIM...

You don't even understand the problem with the current system, do you. The problem RIM had was that the legal test to disprove novelty requires documentation (generally from a previous patent), and people don't waste time writing down and meticulously documenting the bloody obvious. This is why (as the GP poster said) the current test is rubbish.