On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 9 of 19:
Next »
« Previous
RE: Limiting Continuations
Be careful what you wish for. Most practitioners would point out (and even corporate PAs HAVE) that the patent system is built on the existing continuation practice, which is now in jeopardy... and in court.

Inventors may now less expensively have continuations prepared... just add claims, filing fees and filing papers, and mix thoroughly; an examiner may now use his growing knowledge of an invention to better expedite examination of successive continuations.

Starting Nov. 1 (if not enjoined) the inventor must pay for preparation of separate applications... if they can be filed at all; the patent office must review separate apps that may be differently formed and may be allotted to different examiners (who must again re-learn the technology). Does this sound good to you???

Moreover, the new rules are retroactive... taking away the rights of inventors who relied on the patent system in deciding to disclose their inventions.

Reform IS needed. Costs are soaring and -despite hard work- service is waning. Software Copyright & Patent duality is odd at best. Forcing software (or medical procedures, living organisms, etc.) into a structure built for mechanical devices must be resolved. Clinging to hardware and software separate-ness is expensive to clients, and we may soon LOSE the "first to invent" rule. Just be careful what you wish for and think things through BEFORE you jump in. It's not as simple as it may first appear.
Posted by: DigiMediaMan   Posted on: 10/10/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Reform?  Tim Patterson | 10/10/07
Be very afraid  frgough | 10/10/07
Sorry but you're so very wrong  maldain | 10/10/07
Exactly, and...  Cayble | 10/10/07
Sourcing has astronomical elasticity. Example: Compression RDK_aa3.4.6..i2  RobeTirm@... | 10/10/07
What?  James T. Kirk | 10/10/07
I think he used one of those spam nonsense generators to create that (nt)  enduser_z | 10/10/07
I question the validity of your first statement  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/10/07
RE: Limiting Continuations  DigiMediaMan | 10/10/07
RE: Fixing a broken patent system  wpenrose | 10/10/07
IP lawyer yes; patent attorney no  DigiMediaMan | 10/10/07
RE: Fixing a broken patent system  mabe3 | 10/10/07
Ummm, no...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/10/07
Prior art often exists which could make patent applications fraud  David Chassels | 10/10/07
How would you do that?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/10/07
I don't think that's what he was suggesting  maldain | 10/10/07
Its not the small guys it's the big ones that need to be held to account  David Chassels | 10/11/07
RE: Fixing a broken patent system  eengnerd | 10/10/07
All patents must die [nt]  Omch'Ar | 10/10/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
Click Here
advertisement

Meet Doc