Slashdot Mirror
Federal Appeals Court Tosses Spam Patent
Zordak writes "US patent 6,631,400 claims a method of making sure enough people get your spam. A federal district court had overturned the patent as anticipated and obvious, and not drawn to patentable subject matter. The Federal Circuit, the appeals court which hears patent matters, upheld the finding of obviousness, thus invalidating the patent."
...to assign the patent to an anti-spam organization, then watch as they sue spammers into oblivion for patent infringement!
Spam is already illegal. Hooray, no more spam!~
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The primary purpose of patents is to *STOP* the competition from doing whatever it is you are patenting (yes, I know this isn't the stated purpose, but it is the purpose-in-effect). The secondary purpose is to collect money from people who do what you patented, so you can make money without doing it yourself.
In both cases, once you patent something, there is a net loss in the number of people doing it. We have observed this time and time again in the industry.
So why in the world would you REJECT a spam patent? By all means, GRANT THE PATENT! Let the spammers sue each other into oblivion and reduce the total amount of spam generated.
Sheesh.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Clearly your example disproves the existence of the soul.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Sorry, I've got prior art on that.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
I think you'd serve the world better by releasing that idea into the public domain immediately.
So you're saying you're using hotmail?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
pics or it didn't happen
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
A little wounded pride here. How is that an error in the summary? The district court invalidated on three grounds. The Fed. Cir. upheld the obviousness finding. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said.
Cut from my summary is a link to Patently-O which has some pretty good analysis.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Wow, yeah, you're right. My apologies. I read the summary as 'A federal court overturned the patent as anticipated and obvious, and not drawn to patentable subject matter' and presumed that referred to the Federal Circuit. Someone should go ahead and mod my first post down to avoid confusion.
Sorry to burst your bubble; but the industry has shown us time and again that they will change the law to suit their purposes. You really think that in a decade, these software patents will become public domain? Ha, that has just as much a chance as Mickey Mouse becoming public domain (yeah, I know, copyright versus patent, but in the end we are discussing the same thing which is intellectual property).
Trust me, there are lobbys in D.C. right now fighting to extend patents, and then extend them again, probably into perpetuity. Once a company sees a revenue stream from patents, you think they are going to give that up just because it's the law? You must be high. From a long-term standpoint it's more profitable to spend millions to change the law.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.