If I have the honor, what I can offer now is to write up, in the name
of BLU, a "request for ex parte reexamination" and get it on file in
the patent office in an attempt to invalidate the asserted patent(s).
But, I would need support from the BLU (e.g., knowledge and time to
find prior art, official fees to be paid to the patent office, and
other costs). Would anyone be willing to take action together?
HYC on the go
在 Oct 3, 2011 9:01 PM 時，Matt Shields <m...@mattshields.org> 寫到：
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Hsuan-Yeh Chang
<hsuan...@gmail.com> wrote:
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."
Talking about this particular patent (USP 7,818,225), the claims are
directed to "a financial instrument," which does not even fall into
the four statutory patentable classes (i.e., "process," "machine,"
"manufacture," and "composition of matter"). This very patent cannot
really prove that the patent system is screwed up. This patent only
proves that the Patent Office should train their Examiners better.
Plus, there are administrative proceedings that one can use to knock
down this patent. The owner of this patent should better not seek
enforcement, or it would be invalidated rather easily...
HYC
- Hide quoted text -
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:03 AM, <ma...@mohawksoft.com> wrote:
>
> >> See the poster child
> >> http://www.1201tuesday.com/1201_tuesday/2010/10/poster-child.html
> >>
> >> If this is a valid patent; already in; how do you accommodate
that?
> >
> >
> > If I were the Examiner, I would reject the claims and have the
applicant
> > appeal my decision. With this particular case, I would blame
the Examiner
> > for passing this application to issuance.
> >
> And that's the problem. You assume the patent examiner has the real
> ability to reject this patent. He or she does not. The patent
examiner
> must have a defensible reason to reject a patent, it can not be
arbitrary.
> There are limited tools with which they can reject a patent
application.
>
> With Bilski, its a little easier, but it is still hard. The weight
is on
> the examiner to prove it can't be patented, the patent application
is
> assumed to be patentable otherwise. This is why absurd patents get
> approved.
>
> The patent system has been destroyed by IP lawyers and it is broken.
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Hsuan-Yeh,
This is exactly the kind of ridiculous stupidity that IP and patent
lawyers do to waste people's time and money. Again, I'll repeat my
recommendation to you, if you are serious about helping the OSS
community or the industry in general, donate your time to defend
against these trolls.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/03/2236255/Patent-Troll-Says-Anyone-Using-Wi-Fi-Infringes?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29
Matthew Shields
Owner
BeanTown Host - Web Hosting, Domain Names, Dedicated Servers,
Colocation, Managed Services
www.beantownhost.com
www.sysadminvalley.com
www.jeeprally.com
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
