On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 46 of 124:
Next »
« Previous
Congress used a word...
... and the word is "obvious". A question Courts have been answering for years is what Congress intended, and how best to carry out that intent. The first rule is that words mean what they apparently mean.

The problem here is that "obvious" is subjective. It's like Congress passed a law against likeable patents or demoralizing patents.

So the Justices now and those who preceded them have to decide how to find something obvious in a way that will guide anyone besides themselves. And which will not respond primarily to the attitude of whoever evaluates the application.

You did imply a definition when you said "activites that have been known for decades if not centuries". I like that one. It may be so close to prior art that it's a distinction without a difference, but at least it's useable.
Posted by: Anton Philidor   Posted on: 11/28/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

This might help, but patents will still stifle inovation.  DonnieBoy | 11/28/06
Hear Hear !  htotten | 11/28/06
Don't you mean will stifle COPYING.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/28/06
Copyright, Copying...  BanjoPaterson | 11/29/06
Intellectual property? An obscure idea in it self.  holst.g@... | 11/29/06
Print authors beg  Too Old For IT | 11/29/06
On the contrary ...  mwagner@... | 12/01/06
So will this effect McDonalds  RIAAsucks | 11/28/06
Get Your Facts Straight  Tiquor | 11/28/06
I'm not sure that helps...  John L. Ries | 11/28/06
That's the same thing  voska | 11/28/06
Talk about obviousness  reddtigger | 11/28/06
I agree  clockmendergb@... | 11/28/06
NTP to patent the sandwhich  Too Old For IT | 11/29/06
No it isn't.  osreinstall | 11/28/06
So, if I make a sandwich the same way....  smoring | 11/29/06
Still don't get it.  osreinstall | 11/29/06
Yeah right  voska | 11/29/06
Never that desperate  osreinstall | 11/29/06
Here's how I see it  voska | 11/29/06
And this is how I see it.  osreinstall | 11/29/06
Reinstall. Why do you do this?  Logics | 11/29/06
Because I want to.  osreinstall | 11/30/06
Wrong focus  voska | 11/29/06
You really don't understand patents.  osreinstall | 11/29/06
Poor reading skills manybe?  voska | 11/29/06
Poor spelling skills  osreinstall | 11/29/06
You should learn to read posts before posting.  Logics | 11/29/06
You should think before posting.  osreinstall | 11/30/06
Trade Secrets; Copyright; NDA; Non Compete  mighetto | 11/28/06
Non Compete and other items  jjmcdonald7911@... | 11/29/06
Funny but...  Logics | 11/29/06
The Supremes  Too Old For IT | 11/29/06
This is obvious  jsjag1 | 11/28/06
Excellent idea  frgough | 11/28/06
Doesn't work.  Anton Philidor | 11/28/06
Yours doesn't either  Harrim | 11/28/06
Your code does the same thing.  Anton Philidor | 11/28/06
I disagree  voska | 11/28/06
So let's say...  Anton Philidor | 11/28/06
Anton - you want to have to have your cake and eat it....  bportlock | 11/29/06
Um that's capitolism  voska | 11/29/06
Open Office  Anton Philidor | 11/29/06
You have to DO something with your idea to copyright it.  Too Old For IT | 11/29/06
Re: Doesn't work.  none none | 11/28/06
Congress used a word...  Anton Philidor | 11/28/06
Your definition with the caveat...  Anton Philidor | 11/28/06
Re: Your definition with the caveat...  none none | 11/28/06
Herein lies the problem!  Logics | 11/30/06
Copyright instead of Patent?  metajohn@... | 11/28/06
But where does it stop?  A.Sinic | 11/29/06
Just my opinion  voska | 11/29/06
Wow all the techies got a bit touchy  jsjag1 | 11/29/06
if patents and copyrights foster genius, where is Mozart?  ionbidon@... | 11/28/06
Get informed  frgough | 11/28/06
Really?  Langalibalene | 11/28/06
"Marxists", huh?  John L. Ries | 11/28/06
Health insurance is a scam  reddtigger | 11/28/06
Responded in the wrong place  John L. Ries | 11/28/06
What?  jsjag1 | 11/29/06
Use some logic  voska | 11/29/06
Wishing he could still get royalties...  Anton Philidor | 11/28/06
Think you missed the point  voska | 11/28/06
Music before Copyright  A.Sinic | 11/29/06
How's that any different from today  voska | 11/29/06
Mozart is...  jt@... | 11/28/06
RE: Mozart is...  blaze1024 | 11/29/06
Dude, go talk to Edison...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/28/06
Hold on to your lug nuts...  Carrion | 11/28/06
My favorite Obvious patent...  astro_z | 11/28/06
Excellent find!!  Carrion | 11/28/06
Exercising a cat  jt@... | 11/28/06
how about a pie chart or training manual  RIAAsucks | 11/28/06
Re: My favorite Obvious patent...  none none | 11/28/06
If the beam is "invisible" how would the cat see it...  rgranger | 11/28/06
Obvious?  notsofast | 11/28/06
Great example  jsjag1 | 11/29/06
My Favorite  wkranitz@... | 11/29/06
Prior Art in third World countries....  Logics | 11/30/06
Patent law  bobwinners | 11/28/06
a test is necessary - yet loop holes must be plugged  chasster | 11/28/06
Is it novel, original? Do people in the field say ...  jt@... | 11/28/06
Aside from the Obvious after the fact....  Anton Philidor | 11/28/06
...but...  John L. Ries | 11/28/06
Laws of nature can't be patented.  Anton Philidor | 11/28/06
Never said they could  John L. Ries | 11/28/06
Jefferson was the first in charge...  Anton Philidor | 11/29/06
You're right, he was  John L. Ries | 11/29/06
Restrictions  Anton Philidor | 11/29/06
Re: Aside from the Obvious after the fact....  none none | 11/28/06
Patent system is broken  rjcarlson49 | 11/28/06
Another step towards ripping off Australia's CSIRO  YuridaMan | 11/28/06
Not really  osreinstall | 11/28/06
patent is the tech area is sick and distorded  Mectron | 11/28/06
yeah right  element13 | 11/28/06
Tackle more of the problem.  diane@... | 11/28/06
The Original Objective  JelMin | 11/28/06
Pardon me, this is not the task of the court.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/28/06
Court's Job - Interperet Laws  The-Bytemaster | 11/28/06
Interpret yes, make new law no,  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/28/06
Judges can't make new laws  voska | 11/29/06
In the US, unfortunately, they can.  Anton Philidor | 11/29/06
Be careful what you wish for  John L. Ries | 11/28/06
Regardless of outcome,  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/28/06
Then you think software patents in the US should never have existed  Edward Meyers | 11/29/06
No, I said it is up to Congress. Having reading problems?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/29/06
You have the reading problem  Edward Meyers | 11/29/06
In general, I agree  John L. Ries | 11/29/06
But of Course it is!  mejohnsn | 12/15/06
Supreme Court weighs 'obviousness' of patents  turnitup | 11/28/06
Possibly  John L. Ries | 11/28/06
Insurance forums  jsjag1 | 11/29/06
The original topic of the thread...  John L. Ries | 11/29/06
Obviousness in Patent Cases  mekhongkurt@... | 11/29/06
The Problem with Patents  voska | 11/29/06
GOOD  CobraA1 | 11/29/06
Patents: Obvious problems and solutions  frsharp@... | 11/29/06
Something amiss?  frsharp@... | 11/29/06
Supreme Court loves to pick battles of their 'liking'  Boot_Agnostic | 11/29/06
perpetual motion machine patents  brucewt | 11/30/06
I think in the USA, you can't patent perpetual motion machines anymore  CobraA1 | 12/03/06
Why have patents?  pcmag@... | 12/05/06
Spot the uncreative person in this picture...  DirkBelig | 12/09/06
Consumer Psychology  rpitty | 02/10/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement