Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] landmark patent case is a victory for innovation

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Tue, 1 May 2007, Jonathan King wrote:

> When the Supreme Court goes 9-0 on something, they are making an 
> unusually strong statement about a topic. And yesterday's decision is 
> huge:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/30/AR2007043001668.html
>
> Basically, this empowers patent examiners and courts to consider 
> "obviousness" in a much less constrained way, particularly in cases 
> where you are seeking a patent for invention A that is the simple 
> composition of pieces with previous discoveries. If this really kicks 
> in, I think the number of patents could go down by 50% or more, although 
> the number of lawsuits that go to trial will go way up if more patents 
> are challenged.
>
> Overall, this is excellent news.


Things were getting out of control.  I was bothered especially by "use 
patents" where the "inventor" simply suggested a way to use something that 
already existed.  When I saw the "method of exercising a cat" using a 
laser pointer,...

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/lasercat.html

... it pissed me off because I had been doing that before it was 
"invented," as had many other people, and we didn't like someone else 
pretending he was the lone genius who came up with it.  Yes, that's a real 
patent.

On the other hand, it might be fun to come up with funny "use patents" and 
get them in the USPO database.  Let's see, how about "method of using a 
bowling ball to crack walnuts?"  "Method of using a vacuum cleaner to 
catch mice?"  I could go on.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion