Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Hopefully, the court won't go so far as to create a new standard, just rule that the current one is not Constitutional. That would force Congress to write a new patent standard, which is who should be deciding the issue. Patents haven't become high viz enough to be a campaign issue, but I'd love to see an advisory panel of both industry and academic representatives formed to create a better system, and then have Congress vote on that.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
Well most of these people actually do think of the solution and actually create a working product, but then a Submarine Patent Troll comes out of the woodwork telling them that their actual invention violates their vague patent that they never bothered to bring to market or tell anyone else about.
What is a "submarine patent troll?" The 1995 Amendments to the patent laws pretty much ended the endless continuation practice that Lemelson, the original "submarine patent guy" used to his advantage.
BTW, patents are public record -- they are all publicly available on the USPTO website. Should a patent holder have to go out and notify any potential infringers before they begin developing a product?
That is the key problem here... Not that it is just obvious, but they are going after people who do come up with the idea themselves rather than those who have stolen the idea from them.
How do you propose we sort out the "true" infringers who are "stealing" an idea from those who came up with the idea independently? What test to you propose to determine what independent development is? How far "back" in the development stream do you need to go to show "independence?"
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
A method of reliably transfering data using a protocol intended for a radio link should be patentable.
Using said radio link to transfer email should not; it should be tied to the original e-mail patent, or not at all.
A menuing system, like that on Apple's iPod should not be patentable; anyone designing a device with a screen the size of Apples has a significant chance to stumbling on the same design.
The problem as I see it is 'obviousness' is being determined by people who aren't actually familiar with the process of design. Instead they assume that if they haven't read about it in research material it must therefor not be obvious.
I wrote a program on the Commodore 64 which implemented Bresenham's line algorithm; I didn't even know about it, I did it based on what I learned in mathematics in grade 5. I don't think I'm brilliant, hence, I don't think software and algorithm should generally be patentable.