About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristant #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Biotech Industry Losing Interest in the Therapeutic Potential of RNAi | Main | The Disappearance of Deceptive Intent in S. 23 »

March 22, 2011

Comments

Nothing like sowing the seeds of conflicting messages, given that the Court in Bilksi has already held that the Congress HAS more than impliedly construed that business method patents ARE patentable subject matter, with the Tax Section language that sidesteps an actual disavowel of the section that the Court used to make its finding.

Such waffling can only cause trouble. If the good Senators who wrote this section MEAN to disavow business methods as patentable subject matter, they shoudl come straight out and state it. By NOT doing so, there is nothing in the Tax Section portion that indicates that the Supreme Court holding is over-ruled, and thus - the side swipe is completely ineffectual.

Very poor drafting.

Dear Skeptical:

The Senators (and the President) don't want to do that because it could (and probably would) constitute a taking, for which big players like Visa and Amex and most banks would most certainly sue for damages. Since the technology disclosed in these patents arguably includes prior "trade secrets" that the promise of patenting induced them to disclose, they may have a point. But it would be costly.

If the court (any court) does it, however, it isn't a taking. Which explains the language in S.23.

Thanks for the comment.

Remember when they wanted to close the Patent Office because everything had been invented? Then, folks invented more stuff? Now.. In 2011, the USPTO is saying there are too many inventions? Is'nt this the same thing happening again?

I truly believe that patents have been out of reach of the "little guy" and the Provisional Patent has made way to allow the "little guy" to benefit from the rewards of their inventive idea.

So, I say.. FILE AWAY guys and gals! They will figure out how to deal with your filings!

Even if done surreptitiously as "patent reform," almost any measure that will serve to reduce the USPTO's backlog and prop up the domestic economy in sagging areas is welcome. So if we have Detroit and Denver, will the 3rd satellite office be on the east coast? And if so, where? New Jersey, Pittsburgh, or Florida. perhaps? Any insight? Personally, I'd hope for an office in California.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/qanda-small-inventors-raise-patent-reform-concerns/2011/03/28/AFLJ9NpB_blog.html

The comments to this entry are closed.

March 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31