Sources: USPTO , , Network World
quote: This makes absolutely no sense. More proof that you have absolutely no clue what you are writing about. Obvious = not inventive = invalid. Obviousness must be demonstrated by the prior art.
quote: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless-(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country...(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or
quote: Laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable.
quote: And by prior art I mean prior art before the priority date. Not like in the last article where you attempt to argue that the universal search invention is not novel by using Windows XP from October 2001 while failing to realize that the Apple patent had priority all the way back to January 5, 2000. In other words, the prior art you mentioned in your article was not, in fact, prior art.
quote: First of all, you are pointing to the wrong statute. It's 35 USC 101 that talks about patentable subject matter, not 102. Did you even glance at the supreme court case? Read the very first line of the opinion. You're looking at the wrong statute (35 USC 102 discusses novelty and what is prior art). Who's clueless?
quote: Second, that isn't a recent interpretation, that goes back a long time. Again, second paragraph of the Supreme Court Opinion citing cases from 1841 and 1854.
quote: Third, obviousness is 35 USC 103 and has nothing to do with patentable subject matter.
quote: Fourth, thank you for making a sane argument regarding it potentially being an abstract idea. However, this has no bearing on novelty (35 USC 102) or obviousness (35 USC 103). It's a 35 USC 101 question. If you want to make the argument, you need to compare the claimed subject matter in the Apple patent to the Diehr and Flook case that the Court starts talking about on page 11. Unfortunately, the law here is changing frequently and right now we are left doing a compare and contrast with Diehr and Flook to determine if something is an abstract idea or not. Not easy to do for a lawyer, let alone a patent examiner.
quote: In 2007, Samsung, HTC, Google and all others in the industry didn’t have a smartphone with the likes of Apple’s iPhone features. They didn’t have the solutions that Apple eloquently brought to market to make a smartphone truly smart. Apple carefully and meticulously crafted a full end-to-end smartphone solution. So when the copycats and their followers whine in public and on blogs that Apple should learn to compete instead of initiate litigation – I bowl over with laughter.
quote: Leave the law to the judges and the courts, they are the professionals. Reading DT on patents is like listening to somewhere who plays Fifa 12 lecturing Sir Alex Ferguson on how to manage Manchester United. Embarrassing, obsessive and a bit weird.
quote: Leave the law to the judges and the courts, they are the professionals.
quote: Sec. 102 makes Sec. 101 more explicit by spelling out what conditions disqualify something that might seem like an invention per Sec. 101. Hence all of these kinds of cases first mention Sec. 101, then move on to discuss quotations from Sec. 102, when discussing disqualification.
quote: You just completely agreed with my point and still called me clueless. Patentable subject matter = 35 USC 101; Novelty = 35 USC 102. Obviousness = 35 USC 103. Stop conflating them and blurring the lines. I get paid a lot of money for this and am quite good. Trying to help you out as I am an long time reader of the site. Take the help and improve rather than conflating concepts and arguing nonsense.
quote: In other words, yes there are some ideas that are too "obvious" to patent -- specifically, abstract (ambiguous) ideas, and natural phenomenon. I would argue this meets the criteria of an "abstract idea" quite, concisely
quote: Microsoft would merely have to publish a document that they were working on unified search before Apple. And again, I would argue unified search is an abstract idea and is inherently non-patentable (see ruling No. 10–1150). But even if you were going to debate that: a) Microsoft could almost surely produce a pre-2000 document showing they were working on unified search. b) Unified search was built into Veronica search engine, which used the Gopher protocol and was developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, coming out in 1992. So where's your snarky response now, troll?
quote: I highlighted the 3 words making this whole sentence irrelevant. Naturally the patent office who has a firmer grasp of the law than you managed to conclude differently.
quote: I don't think I have ever seen such a ridiculous argument. I wonder if you honestly think that ' could almost surely ' represents any kind of legal argument, whatsoever, completely absent of any evidence or supporting documentation, based purely on a speculative guess of a biased idiot. Seriously?As for the 'Veronica search engine' - a search engine, not a unified search in the same way as Apple implemented it, is completely irrelevant. It simply crawled websites / ftp servers looking for a specific string - something not even remotely similar to what Apple implemented.So a guess and an irrelevance, as well as ignoring the words of a legal mind who actually has a clue.Impressive.
quote: "But Veronica didn't search your own computer!" you say? By definition if the unix server you used ran a gopher site which was indexed by Veronica, whenever you used it you were searching your own computer along with those on the Internet.Seems to me Apple took an already-existing idea from the open source community, built their own version, and filed a patent on it.
quote: Anyone can understand patent law, it's not really that hard.
quote: LeBron James and I both play basketball, but I wouldn't go around saying that I know more about playing basketball than he does.
quote: What's lacking by the clerk who approved this and by you is common sense.
quote: You're delusional
quote: Says who? The laws is pretty brief and concise, and there's a handful of high profile cases that should elucidate in greater detail what is unclear in the law... the rest is purely common sense. Anyone can understand patent law, it's not really that hard. What's lacking by the clerk who approved this and by you is common sense. Who says some low-level patent clerk is some great legal scholar or someone with a high-level of technological understanding? They're just a person like you or I. You're delusional to think otherwise.
quote: "But Veronica didn't search your own computer!" you say? By definition if the unix server you used ran a gopher site which was indexed by Veronica, whenever you used it you were searching your own computer along with those on the Internet. Seems to me Apple took an already-existing idea from the open source community, built their own version, and filed a patent on it.