Slashdot Mirror
Justices Question Microsoft's Vision of Patent Law
angry tapir writes "US Supreme Court justices on Monday questioned whether they should side with Microsoft and weaken the legal standard needed to invalidate a patent, with some justices suggesting there are alternatives to changing established law. The issue arose as part of the case involving Redmond and i4i."
Yup. You don't get to release a product to the public and then 20 years later try and go patent it. You've got one year from the release of the product to file for a patent. If not, you are out of luck.
Actually, you pretty much describe the system as it exists. The 1 year period the GP refers to is for a provisional patent. You file the provisional patent saying "I'm about to release a cool new invention that does X" and then you have one year to release it and file for a non-provisional patent, which lasts for 20 (or 14 if it's a design patent covering the form rather than the function).
While M$ may prevail in this case, the case itself ironically can be used to invalid many of M$'s own patents.
Don't cry foul when what you wish for come back to take a big bite at your ass, Micro$oft !
Microsoft might be many things, but a patent troll isn't usually one of them. That's one reason that Apple and Google are siding with them on this issue, the other being that these big technology companies are the primary targets for genuine patent trolls like i4i.
The entire patent system is in need of serious reform. Microsoft pushing to make it easier to invalidate all the completely stupid and pointless patents the USPTO has gotten into the habit of granting is only a good thing. It's the first step in (hopefully) bringing some sanity back into the system, and I don't care if it's Microsoft, Apple, or ScumSoft doing the legwork and footing the bill.
PS: That doesn't help your "argument".
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Actually, you pretty much describe the system as it exists. The 1 year period the GP refers to is for a provisional patent. You file the provisional patent saying "I'm about to release a cool new invention that does X" and then you have one year to release it and file for a non-provisional patent, which lasts for 20 (or 14 if it's a design patent covering the form rather than the function).
No. It's only considered prior art if it's offered for sale in the U.S. more than 1 year before the filing date. See 35 USC 102(b). This has nothing to do with a provisional application.
Microsoft don't generally have a habit of being a Patent troll
Microsoft claims that free software like Linux, which runs a big chunk of corporate America, violates 235 of its patents.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm
Why Did Microsoft Sell Off 22 'Linux-Related' Patents?
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Why-Did-Microsoft-Sell-Off-22-LinuxRelated-Patents-618335/
TomTom gets allies in Microsoft Linux patent lawsuit fight
http://blogs.computerworld.com/tomtom_gets_allies_in_microsoft_linux_patent_lawsuit_fight
Microsoft's Linux patent bingo hits Google's Android
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/29/microsoft_htc_linux_patents/
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - ...
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States ...
Have you looked at their "patent"?
A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations
Similar standards and applications which make use of the standard have been around since at least 1986.
which is totally what she said