The USPTO has nothing to do with the fact that a working version of the invention is not required for receiving a patent. Congress decided that, and they did it a long time ago (at least more than 100 years).
This is false. In the U.S., you have 12 months after the first public knowledge, use, or sale of your invention to file a patent for it (although it is wise to do so well before this deadline).
However, you may become ineligible for a patent in many foreign countries immediately after the first public disclosure.
Quantum physics does NOT imply that there are a finite number of states.
The "Hilbert space" of quantum physics may be either finite or infinite.
In any case, no self-respecting physicist would infer that the universe as a whole has a finite number of states on the basis of a formalism used to describe experiments on things which are on the order of magnitude of Planck's constant.
There are some problems with the way patents are examined in the US, but the fact is that US patents are of higher quality (and hence more valuable) than patents anywhere else in the world. This is due in large part to the effectiveness of the examination system.
Software patents are not examined as effectively as other types of patents, e.g., for hardware or mechanical devices, in large part because of the natural language problem; when I claim software, I am claiming an algorithm that can be described in hundreds of different ways in English, even though to one of ordinary skill in the art all of those descriptions would mean the same thing. Add to that the fact that the technology is developing so quickly that nobody in the industry is aware of all the latest developments, and you have a serious information distribution problem -- examiners don't have access to the prior art.
The answer is not to overthrow a system that has helped to make the US a global leader in technology development. In fact, few, if any, changes need to be made to the system at all. As the software industry develops, the fundamental concepts that form the basis for technology in the industry will become better and more widely understood, and fewer "obvious" patents (like the "one click" patent) will issue. In the mean time, we have to look carefully at what is being claimed in these patents to see how the industry develops a legal description for its fundamental concepts.
Software patents in the end will protect small companies that come up with "killer apps" rather than allowing large companies to perpetuate monopolies that are founded on their dominating share of the market. The patent system has done this again and again in other fields, and software will be no different.
Laches absolutely does apply to patent litigation! The federal circuit recently ruled that it might be applied as a defense for infringement even in cases where the patent was delayed during prosecution on purpose by the applicant. Better read up on your patent law, PinkStainlessTail.
The laws have changed since 1980, but the assesment given above -- that the patent must have been issued in 1989 if expires in 2006 -- is correct since the changes were made subsequent to that date (in 1995).
The long delay could have been caused by the filing of a series of continuation or divisional applications that depend on an original application filed in 1980. In such a situation, the later filed applications are often entitled to the earlier filing date for their shared subject matter.
You can't do this kind of thing anymore because no patent terms are determined from the date of filing rather than from the date of issue.
This isn't true if they're trying to get a patent on their product. For patents, it's the conception, not the reduction to practice that matters the most for "inventorship".
I did a Physics major as an undergrad, and then went on to Chemistry grad school. Things weren't working out as well as I had hoped, and I decided to try something totally different for awhile at least (on a leave of absence).
I've been working at a law firm preparing patent applications for about six months now, and I love it. I get exposed to the latest and greatest technology from many companies, and get to work with some really bright engineers and scientists. The demand for this work is high, and so, accordingly, is the pay.
If you like writing, and working with lots of people is important to you, I'd recommend a career in patent law.
As some of you may know, the claims that do not refer to other claims are the important ones in determining whether or not a product infringes the patent.
The independent claims of this patent are terse, and use very ambiguous terms. This means that it is very broad, and so very likely to be infringed.
Fortunately, the earliest filing date that they might claim for this patent is in '99, and their is plenty of prior art available to get (at least the first claim) ruled invalid.
That first claim is ridiculously broad, in fact. That type of process has been around since networks were invented in the 70s, right?
Actually, the meaning of the langage "A method of" implies that the statutory subject matter for the patent is a process rather than a machine. This is common for patents on software, and doesn't say anything interesting about the relative merit of this patent's claims.
Most likely he wasn't waiting. They probably only filed suit after license negotiations failed. This is the preferred strategy for getting someone to take a license.
Last week, MIT filed a complaint for infringement of a patent on digital color scanning, listing about a hundred defendants. Their lawyers are going to have a hard time dealing with all the responses!
Slashdot Mirror
... or patent therapy!
Then hire a patent AGENT.
They can prosecute your application just like an attorney -- but without actually being one!
The USPTO has nothing to do with the fact that a working version of the invention is not required for receiving a patent. Congress decided that, and they did it a long time ago (at least more than 100 years).
This is false. In the U.S., you have 12 months after the first public knowledge, use, or sale of your invention to file a patent for it (although it is wise to do so well before this deadline). However, you may become ineligible for a patent in many foreign countries immediately after the first public disclosure.
He said Thermodynamics. There is no t in that.
he means the oracle of apollo at delphi, as every good greek would know...
Quantum physics does NOT imply that there are a finite number of states. The "Hilbert space" of quantum physics may be either finite or infinite. In any case, no self-respecting physicist would infer that the universe as a whole has a finite number of states on the basis of a formalism used to describe experiments on things which are on the order of magnitude of Planck's constant.
You can always represent yourself -- not an easy way to go, but cheap.
Also, the PTO halves their fees for small entities.
There are some problems with the way patents are examined in the US, but the fact is that US patents are of higher quality (and hence more valuable) than patents anywhere else in the world. This is due in large part to the effectiveness of the examination system.
Software patents are not examined as effectively as other types of patents, e.g., for hardware or mechanical devices, in large part because of the natural language problem; when I claim software, I am claiming an algorithm that can be described in hundreds of different ways in English, even though to one of ordinary skill in the art all of those descriptions would mean the same thing. Add to that the fact that the technology is developing so quickly that nobody in the industry is aware of all the latest developments, and you have a serious information distribution problem -- examiners don't have access to the prior art.
The answer is not to overthrow a system that has helped to make the US a global leader in technology development. In fact, few, if any, changes need to be made to the system at all. As the software industry develops, the fundamental concepts that form the basis for technology in the industry will become better and more widely understood, and fewer "obvious" patents (like the "one click" patent) will issue. In the mean time, we have to look carefully at what is being claimed in these patents to see how the industry develops a legal description for its fundamental concepts.
Software patents in the end will protect small companies that come up with "killer apps" rather than allowing large companies to perpetuate monopolies that are founded on their dominating share of the market. The patent system has done this again and again in other fields, and software will be no different.
You can't patent something that has been in public use more than 12 months before you file for the patent.
Laches absolutely does apply to patent litigation! The federal circuit recently ruled that it might be applied as a defense for infringement even in cases where the patent was delayed during prosecution on purpose by the applicant. Better read up on your patent law, PinkStainlessTail.
The laws have changed since 1980, but the assesment given above -- that the patent must have been issued in 1989 if expires in 2006 -- is correct since the changes were made subsequent to that date (in 1995).
The long delay could have been caused by the filing of a series of continuation or divisional applications that depend on an original application filed in 1980. In such a situation, the later filed applications are often entitled to the earlier filing date for their shared subject matter.
You can't do this kind of thing anymore because no patent terms are determined from the date of filing rather than from the date of issue.
This isn't true if they're trying to get a patent on their product. For patents, it's the conception, not the reduction to practice that matters the most for "inventorship".
You must not be a patent lawyer!
In patent law, it's the idea that matters. Those who help reduce an invention to practice are almost never given legal credit as "inventors".
That's why we have the patent system. Duh.
I did a Physics major as an undergrad, and then went on to Chemistry grad school. Things weren't working out as well as I had hoped, and I decided to try something totally different for awhile at least (on a leave of absence).
I've been working at a law firm preparing patent applications for about six months now, and I love it. I get exposed to the latest and greatest technology from many companies, and get to work with some really bright engineers and scientists. The demand for this work is high, and so, accordingly, is the pay.
If you like writing, and working with lots of people is important to you, I'd recommend a career in patent law.
As some of you may know, the claims that do not refer to other claims are the important ones in determining whether or not a product infringes the patent. The independent claims of this patent are terse, and use very ambiguous terms. This means that it is very broad, and so very likely to be infringed. Fortunately, the earliest filing date that they might claim for this patent is in '99, and their is plenty of prior art available to get (at least the first claim) ruled invalid. That first claim is ridiculously broad, in fact. That type of process has been around since networks were invented in the 70s, right?
Actually, the meaning of the langage "A method of" implies that the statutory subject matter for the patent is a process rather than a machine. This is common for patents on software, and doesn't say anything interesting about the relative merit of this patent's claims.
There has already been experimental confirmation for the Casimir effect, which you allude to in your last paragraph.
I'm sorry I've forgotten the dude's name, but I remember that they were working at UC Riverside, and that the data looked nice.
Most likely he wasn't waiting. They probably only filed suit after license negotiations failed. This is the preferred strategy for getting someone to take a license.
Last week, MIT filed a complaint for infringement of a patent on digital color scanning, listing about a hundred defendants. Their lawyers are going to have a hard time dealing with all the responses!