A Defense of Process Patents

An anonymous reader writes "In light of the ruling against the University of California patent trolls seeking to claim ownership of the 'Interactive Web,' founding attorney of Beacon Hill Law Joe Stanganelli, has written an article defending process patents. In it, he refers to technology pundits as 'bizarro' and argues that it's a misconception that patents stifle innovation. As he writes, 'What I do not understand is — had the jury determined Eolas's patents valid — why it would be A-OK for dozens of already megarich corporations to get even richer adopting technology they did not invent or have legal permission to use, but somehow immoral for the actual creators of the technology to likewise profit[?]"" I am not a patent lawyer, but I doubt I'm the only one who thinks it's possible to support a patent on an industrial potash processing technique, but not software patents — or at least to distinguish them from each other.

Comments

Its obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents are not supposed to be "obivious to someone skilled in the art".

Re:Patent Trolls

[SadButTrue]

There's a large misconception about Microsoft being a patent troll. In fact, they have never used their patents to bully other companies. Only time they've used their patents is when other companies have tried to bully them. .

So you are claiming that HTC and Samsung have been trying to bully MS? How about B&N?

I hope you are least getting paid for being this wrong.

Re:Oh, the jury strawman

[tibit]

Huh? Both the U.S. patent and the copyright systems are in existence due to the "promotion" clause in the U.S. Constitution. They have the same reason for existence (or lack thereof), they just cover different aspects of it.

Re:Patent Trolls

[MightyMartian]

I neither have the capability nor the desire to go through Slashdot's archives. You can take my word for it or not, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the frequent attacks on Pamela Jones on Slashdot. I won't withdraw it, so that's that.

Re:There are no vague threats

[LordLucless]

I've never seen a post so misinformed rated "informative"

Fortunately for the corporations, first to file is law of the land now.

Which does not invalidate prior art.

So are ridiculously long patent lengths

US patents are 20 years, one year less than they were in 1836, and three years more than in 1994.