[Discuss] more on software patent

[Hsuan-Yeh Chang]

35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.

"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title."

Talking about this particular patent (USP 7,818,225), the claims are
directed to "a financial instrument," which does not even fall into
the four statutory patentable classes (i.e., "process," "machine,"
"manufacture," and "composition of matter").  This very patent cannot
really prove that the patent system is screwed up.  This patent only
proves that the Patent Office should train their Examiners better.
Plus, there are administrative proceedings that one can use to knock
down this patent.  The owner of this patent should better not seek
enforcement, or it would be invalidated rather easily...

HYC
- Hide quoted text -

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:03 AM, <markw at mohawksoft.com> wrote:
>
> >> See the poster child
> >> http://www.1201tuesday.com/1201_tuesday/2010/10/poster-child.html
> >>
> >> If this is a valid patent; already in; how do you accommodate that?
> >
> >
> > If I were the Examiner, I would reject the claims and have the applicant
> > appeal my decision.  With this particular case, I would blame the Examiner
> > for passing this application to issuance.
> >
> And that's the problem. You assume the patent examiner has the real
> ability to reject this patent. He or she does not. The patent examiner
> must have a defensible reason to reject a patent, it can not be arbitrary.
> There are limited tools with which they can reject a patent application.
>
> With Bilski, its a little easier, but it is still hard. The weight is on
> the examiner to prove it can't be patented, the patent application is
> assumed to be patentable otherwise. This is why absurd patents get
> approved.
>
> The patent system has been destroyed by IP lawyers and it is broken.
>