Patent troll suing everyone for using Internet he invented... he may win...

[Locut0s]

I don't think that you fully understand exactly what they're patenting.

Patent articles tend to be sensationalist since the authors tend to not understand the legal effect of a patent, but this one seems kind of broad.

They are patenting the targeting of proteins that these genes encode by possible future drugs. But they don't have to really show that they understand what the protein does in any great detail. They only have to show a rough scientific "guess". Then when other scientists try to do research on these genes they have to work around tons of red tape created by all these patents owned by other companies.

 

[RabidMongoose]

They are patenting the targeting of proteins that these genes encode by possible future drugs. But they don't have to really show that they understand what the protein does in any great detail. They only have to show a rough scientific "guess". Then when other scientists try to do research on these genes they have to work around tons of red tape created by all these patents owned by other companies.

Maybe, but they cannot patent just a human gene as in the form in a human body and that's it. Some alteration or method of use, sure, but not just a human gene that has not been modified or being used in some particular way.

 

[Patranus]

actually yes. in 1990 the guy who invented the intermittent wiper switch won his lawsuit against Ford for stealing his invention.


http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20118404,00.html

Ya, but intermittent windshield wipers are so obvious it shouldn't have been patentable and this guys shouldn't have made a dime.

I mean intermittent windshield wipers, duh, so obvious a 2 year old could have done it!

 

[Patranus]

How can you not see the problems here?

Joe Blow patents the ability to type code into a text editor and have it run. Now every piece of software ever written is in violation of the patent.

This is no different.

There is no problem.
Again, if the patent is valid, then why shouldn't the guy be paid for his innovation?
If the patent isn't valid then the court will take care of it.

The patent office awards far too many patents that are incredibly vague. The consequences of this fuckstick winning this case are extremely dire and will put the US at a HUGE disadvantage in comparison to the rest of the world regarding ecommerce and "interactive web".


Hell, this forum could be considered an "interactive web". Maybe you'd like for Anandtech to be sued and driven out of business or forced to charge for access to the forums to cover ridiculous licensing costs on a patent that should never have been granted.

It has nothing to do with what "I want" rather the rights of the person who brought about the innovation. Yes, it would suck but that doesn't mean society should trample on this mans rights.

Hell, if this man patented a specific method to cure AIDS and then decided to sit on it, does that mean society should trample on his rights as a patent holder? No.

Or, maybe we should go back to 1992 when the Internet was nothing but static pages and information. You'd probably like that. Of course, a huge percentage of people in the US rely on an "interactive web" for their jobs...but don't let that stand in the way of the government police state!


GUMMENT CAN DO NO WRONG!!!111!!1!ONE!!!!

Don't even know how to respond to this one.
Anyways, you act like there are no patents relating to how the internet operates outside of this one claimed patent. There are TONS of patents that are involved with the internet. Cisco holds quite a few of them.

 

[coloumb]

Sounds like a major flaw in the patent process. How great would it be to be a guy who patents some random thing that ends up applying to every company on the planet? You'd feel like King Midas.

Sounds like Steve Jobs - I suspect he patented everything/anything anyone inisde apple designed - even if it was similar to something already patented.

I suspect this is how a lot of people do it - think up something, write down it's description [provide drawings] and then patent it. It may not exist or be popular now - but like Youtube - create enough patents and one of them is bound to be profitable.

 

[Patranus]

Patents are ridiculous. If you 'invent' something, you should damn well have to compete on a level playing field with others that may market that idea.

So if I spend 10 years developing a $1 billion idea while paying myself $36,000 per year I shouldn't be able to patent that idea to reward my sacrifice and hard work?

LOL.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So if I spend 10 years developing a $1 billion idea while paying myself $36,000 per year I shouldn't be able to patent that idea to reward my sacrifice and hard work?

LOL.

If you spend 10 years developing an idea, you absolutely should be able to patent it. If you do nothing with it for a decade afterwards, watch hundreds of companies use the idea, say nothing for another decade, then sue every major corporation in the world for "stealing" your idea? That's absolute horse shit. You don't deserve royalties for other people using an idea that you came up with but ignored. It'd be like the person who realized you could put a camera on a cart and roll it suing every film and television studio because "oh, I came up with that a few decades back." You need to actually pursue the idea and attempt to market it in some way or a patent becomes absolutely meaningless except as an artificial barrier to ANYONE working on the concept.

 

[ElFenix]

There is no problem.
Again, if the patent is valid, then why shouldn't the guy be paid for his innovation?
If the patent isn't valid then the court will take care of it.

the validity of the patent is what tim berners-lee was there to testify about. that the patent in question had already been done by an earlier browser.

and frankly if anyone should sue the internets its apple because web browsers are pretty much a rip off of hypercard.

 

[CanOWorms]

Companies are getting the patents as we speak. All they have to show currently is some vague notion of what they THINK the gene does and some POSSIBLE medical uses for it. They are patenting them en mass so they can get future profits off drugs that target these genes but they don't actually really know what they do currently.

I don't think a "vague notion" would pass muster. Patents are required to pass a utility hurdle, which tends to be more of a concern in the biotech field. Do you have any examples?

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

So if I spend 10 years developing a $1 billion idea while paying myself $36,000 per year I shouldn't be able to patent that idea to reward my sacrifice and hard work?

LOL.

We are talking about software here not designing of the automobile. No source code, no proof.

Cheers

 

[BoberFett]

Patents are the only thing that stifles innovation and creativity.

Closer.

 

[BoberFett]

You're incorrect. Patents encourage innovation. If you had no ability to protect your ideas there would be much less motivation to make anything new.

Without any sort of patent system individuals and small companies would have no chance to pursue anything new. Companies with more resources would swoop in, take the idea, and crush the person or company that actually created the idea.

Ummmm, sounds like you pretty much described our system as it currently exists.

How do patents help again?

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

About the DNA

(B)in the case of a patent which claims a method of manufacturing the product which primarily uses recombinant DNA technology in the manufacture of the product, the permission for the commercial marketing or use of the product after such regulatory period is the first permitted commercial marketing or use of a product manufactured under the process claimed in the patent

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf

 

[CanOWorms]

About the DNA


http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf

What's this in response to?

 

[BoberFett]

I haven't read the patent in depth, but skimming it makes it sound like this guy is trying to claim he invented the client/server model. Sorry, but that's been around a long time. There's nothing creative or non-obvious about doing it using "hypermedia." Interactive web applications was the natural evolution of client/server over http.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

What's this in response to?

Over this subject

They are patenting the targeting of proteins that these genes encode by possible future drugs. But they don't have to really show that they understand what the protein does in any great detail. They only have to show a rough scientific "guess". Then when other scientists try to do research on these genes they have to work around tons of red tape created by all these patents owned by other companies.

 

[Bateluer]

I'm not sure whats more pathetic, the patent troll or Patranus' idiotic attempts to defend them.

 

[CanOWorms]

Over this subject

Thanks, but I don't understand how that's relevant.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Thanks, but I don't understand how that's relevant.

Ask the ones who was arguing about it not me. I just provided a small sub paragraph about the statues covering it. They can go look further into it and decide what is relevant or not.

Oh it also covers other patents as well in fact it covers the whole patent process.

 

[CanOWorms]

Ask the ones who was arguing about it not me. I just provided a small sub paragraph about the statues covering it. They can go look further into it and decide what is relevant or not.

Oh it also covers other patents as well in fact it covers the whole patent process.

Well, what you quoted is about patent term adjustments. We're talking about something different, a more substantive issue of patent law.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Well, what you quoted is about patent term adjustments. We're talking about something different, a more substantive issue of patent law.

It falls under that subsection. I am not going to quote the whole thing. That you can go and read your self which you clearly did not bother to do otherwise we would not be having this convo.

 

[CanOWorms]

It falls under that subsection. I am not going to quote the whole thing. That you can go and read your self which you clearly did not bother to do otherwise we would not be having this convo.

We're talking about Section 101. That's where the utility requirement comes from.

 

[CanOWorms]

Some news has trickled out over the last 30 minutes!

The patents are invalid!

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

We're talking about Section 101. That's where the utility requirement comes from.

Federal Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act

 

[CanOWorms]

Federal Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act

We're not referring to the patent term extensions provided under Hatch-Waxman. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. We're talking about 35 USC 101.

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.