[Discuss] more on software patent

[Matt Shields]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Hsuan-Yeh Chang <hsuanyeh at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

Hsuan-Yeh,
This is exactly the kind of ridiculous stupidity that IP and patent lawyers
do to waste people's time and money.  Again, I'll repeat my recommendation
to you, if you are serious about helping the OSS community or the industry
in general, donate your time to defend against these trolls.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/03/2236255/Patent-Troll-Says-Anyone-Using-Wi-Fi-Infringes?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29


Matthew Shields
Owner
BeanTown Host - Web Hosting, Domain Names, Dedicated Servers, Colocation,
Managed Services
www.beantownhost.com
www.sysadminvalley.com
www.jeeprally.com
Like us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/beantownhost>
Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/#!/beantownhost>