Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The forum software has been upgraded.  New registrations are not currently permitted while we iron out any bugs and other matters.  Please report any problems you find.

Author Topic: Patent absurdities in the protection of software  (Read 503 times)

ipplanet

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Patent absurdities in the protection of software
« on: 05-25-11 at 02:04 am »

The next two videos presented issues concerning the protection of software through patents and what absurd situations can cause this.
Similar analysis are current at the time because the technology sector is at the top of the wave despite the global economic crisis.
Large software companies in the world are in constant legal battles among themselves using the mechanisms of intellectual property for the construction of various strategies to help them to be market leaders.
http://intellectualpropertyplanet.blogspot.com/2011/05/patent-absurdities-in-protection-of.html
Logged

JimIvey

  • Forum Moderator
  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
    • View Profile
    • IveyLaw -- Turning Caffeine into Patents(sm)
Re: Patent absurdities in the protection of software
« Reply #1 on: 05-25-11 at 09:42 am »

I really did try to watch it, but it's hella boring and the same ol' hack job against software patents.

All of the arguments against software patents (that I saw in the first 5 min. or so) were equally applicable to all patents.

I saw a lot of the type of argument where they ask someone what the patent is about, and the person naturally significantly simplifies the description in the oral summary from memory (rather than quote the claim language) and then the idea that such a simple thing could be patented is absurd.  I think I'll call that the argument that patenting of grossly simplified summaries of inventions is absurd.  Of course, the flaw in that argument is that the grossly simplified summary isn't what's patented.

And, I watched long enough to see one mathematician/computer-scientist argue that one patent (not any claim in the patent, but rather the gross simplification of the general subject matter of the patent) is (not was) obvious.  So, the argument appears to be that, since an over-simplified summary of one software patent is now obvious, software patents must not have been included in what Congress intended in Section 101.

Like I said, same ol' hack job.  From the perspective of someone who understands the issue relatively well, the mix of ignorance (about patents, they're smart people in other contexts) and vociferousness is reminiscent of the sort of pitch-fork and torch mobs I've seen in old Frankenstein movies.

Regards.
Logged
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
Friends don't let friends file provisional patent applications.
 



Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.072 seconds with 17 queries.