I'm quite pleased that the Justices defied pundits' predictions and issued this ruling -- I always thought i4i had the stronger arguments, not to mention many years of tradition and precedent on its side. Moreover, I think there's a decent argument that a strong presumption of validity is indicated in the Constitution; and, on a policy note, in countries with weaker patent rights, there lurks always the danger that well-funded entities can use that lesser standard to bankrupt patentees, or even to deprive them of their IP altogether. Thank you, SCOTUS; well done.
The point is not whether a patent was "needed," nor is it whether the innovation is obvious now. The question (or one of the questions) is whether the invention was obvious at the time that the patent application was filed. Anyway, sounds like Lodsys just wants to settle and nab some licensing deals. Honestly, it probably would have been smarter for them to go after Apple and/or other deep pockets, if money's all they want, instead of pursuing one-man development shops; after all, you can't bleed a stone.
Though some complain because the drop in filings has cut into their profits, perhaps it's a positive turn of events, in some ways. Maybe fewer junk patents will tie up the filing system. And, quite likely, recently we've been experiencing in patent law a "bubble" that finally burst. In any case, I agree that innovation and patent filings, though related, are not synonymous. So, in short, I suspect that the rumors of the death of innovation have been greatly exaggerated.
This item is interesting because I'd heard from other sources that the real reason Nokia sued Apple is that Nokia was trying to preempt a potential lawsuit against them by Apple for patent infringement. If this is true, then I guess Nokia's tactic backfired, because Apple is suing them anyway. Of course, the whole business may ultimately amount to no more than a lot of posturing on both sides, in preparation for a settlement agreement. Ah well, such is the world of patent law.
There's little question that "green" technology is increasingly critical to the economy and preservation of the environment. However, the decision also appears to be politically motivated, especially considering the timing of this move. It's certainly nothing new for politics and patent law to be intertwined. Still, one hopes that Kappos et al. have paid heed not only to the political points scored for this decision, but have also thoroughly considered other potential consequences (both positive and negative) of this preferential treatment. It will be interesting to see how all this unfolds.
Yes, sometimes it seems that the governing patent law eligibility standard, "anything under the sun made by man," has instead become "anything under the sun."
My only comment on this blog post is: "Good luck making that argument to most IP lawyers." Rights enforcement and litigation can extremely lucrative (particularly in patent law), so I seriously doubt that most IP attorneys would support your viewpoint -- for self-interested reasons, it's true. I don't think too many lawyers would argue strenuously with the point that copying is good for innovation; but it's bad for profits, and those can sometimes be sizable. So most likely IP enforcement rights will generally remain strong for many years to come.
Bilski has made such broad arguments that it's hard to take his claims seriously. Which makes me wonder whether, ultimately, Prometheus might actually have more impact on patent law. We shall see.
While I'm generally pro-IP, certain gene patenting provisions and practices do appear to call into question whether some gene patenting (and even some "green" patenting) adequately meets constitutional standards. After all, patent law ostensibly exists to serve the public interest.
Patent litigation has, indeed, become big business and (for major players, at least) potentially a lucrative investment. Therefore, it is probably unrealistic to expect patent holders and trolls to police themselves, since they have a disincentive to do so. It may be wise for the administration to exert at least a little pressure on major interested parties, so that the situation does not swing too far out of balance and we remain mindful that the underlying constitutional purpose of the patent system is to foster innovation.
Often patent litigation occurs for strategic and/or political reasons. As Anonymous Coward suggested, Amazon stands to gain, whether they win or lose this particular "fight."
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Gena777.
pleased
I'm quite pleased that the Justices defied pundits' predictions and issued this ruling -- I always thought i4i had the stronger arguments, not to mention many years of tradition and precedent on its side. Moreover, I think there's a decent argument that a strong presumption of validity is indicated in the Constitution; and, on a policy note, in countries with weaker patent rights, there lurks always the danger that well-funded entities can use that lesser standard to bankrupt patentees, or even to deprive them of their IP altogether. Thank you, SCOTUS; well done.
The point is not whether a patent was "needed," nor is it whether the innovation is obvious now. The question (or one of the questions) is whether the invention was obvious at the time that the patent application was filed. Anyway, sounds like Lodsys just wants to settle and nab some licensing deals. Honestly, it probably would have been smarter for them to go after Apple and/or other deep pockets, if money's all they want, instead of pursuing one-man development shops; after all, you can't bleed a stone.
Innovation Is Alive and Well
Though some complain because the drop in filings has cut into their profits, perhaps it's a positive turn of events, in some ways. Maybe fewer junk patents will tie up the filing system. And, quite likely, recently we've been experiencing in patent law a "bubble" that finally burst. In any case, I agree that innovation and patent filings, though related, are not synonymous. So, in short, I suspect that the rumors of the death of innovation have been greatly exaggerated.
Preemptive nukes
This item is interesting because I'd heard from other sources that the real reason Nokia sued Apple is that Nokia was trying to preempt a potential lawsuit against them by Apple for patent infringement. If this is true, then I guess Nokia's tactic backfired, because Apple is suing them anyway. Of course, the whole business may ultimately amount to no more than a lot of posturing on both sides, in preparation for a settlement agreement. Ah well, such is the world of patent law.
Politics
There's little question that "green" technology is increasingly critical to the economy and preservation of the environment. However, the decision also appears to be politically motivated, especially considering the timing of this move. It's certainly nothing new for politics and patent law to be intertwined. Still, one hopes that Kappos et al. have paid heed not only to the political points scored for this decision, but have also thoroughly considered other potential consequences (both positive and negative) of this preferential treatment. It will be interesting to see how all this unfolds.
Anything
Yes, sometimes it seems that the governing patent law eligibility standard, "anything under the sun made by man," has instead become "anything under the sun."
Good luck!
My only comment on this blog post is: "Good luck making that argument to most IP lawyers." Rights enforcement and litigation can extremely lucrative (particularly in patent law), so I seriously doubt that most IP attorneys would support your viewpoint -- for self-interested reasons, it's true. I don't think too many lawyers would argue strenuously with the point that copying is good for innovation; but it's bad for profits, and those can sometimes be sizable. So most likely IP enforcement rights will generally remain strong for many years to come.
Bilski v. Prometheus?
Bilski has made such broad arguments that it's hard to take his claims seriously. Which makes me wonder whether, ultimately, Prometheus might actually have more impact on patent law. We shall see.
Gene Patenting
While I'm generally pro-IP, certain gene patenting provisions and practices do appear to call into question whether some gene patenting (and even some "green" patenting) adequately meets constitutional standards. After all, patent law ostensibly exists to serve the public interest.
Government intervention
Patent litigation has, indeed, become big business and (for major players, at least) potentially a lucrative investment. Therefore, it is probably unrealistic to expect patent holders and trolls to police themselves, since they have a disincentive to do so. It may be wise for the administration to exert at least a little pressure on major interested parties, so that the situation does not swing too far out of balance and we remain mindful that the underlying constitutional purpose of the patent system is to foster innovation.
Amazon wins
Often patent litigation occurs for strategic and/or political reasons. As Anonymous Coward suggested, Amazon stands to gain, whether they win or lose this particular "fight."