Supreme Court Weighs in on Patent Fight ~ eBay and others

Las Vegas Sun ^ | March 29, 2006 | TONI LOCY ASSOCIATED PRESS

[quietolong]

Just so people don’t get the idea that RCA & Vladimir Zworkin invented TV (check the patent RCA tried the same thing to say they did)

The real inventor of electronic Television

Philo T Farnsworth

http://philotfarnsworth.com/philotfarnsworth/index.html

http://www.farnovision.com/

[AndyTheBear]

Then perhaps the Constitution should be amended to reward implementers who use other people's inventions, instead of securing to inventors the right to their inventions.

So as the Constitution stands you believe the makers of the "Jetson's" have invented the flying car?

I can't wait to patent the cure for cancer. Why should I have to actually implement it first?

[AndyTheBear]

Didn't the Supreme Court already rule that software is a matter of Copyright laws and not Patent laws.

No, can you be more specific? I am aware that there are thousands and thousands of software algorithm "patents". Perhaps calling them patents is only a layman term? Perhaps this ruling you speak of was recent and just overturned them?

Most of the time no legal challenges are made, because they are just too silly. But there are some lawyer heavy "software" companies who don't really produce software, but simply try to patent the obvious and bring harassment lawsuits.

[AndyTheBear]

Frankly this document contributed nothing new and orginal--it just demonstrated to audacity of a certain company to try to "patent" the obvious.

If they had actually invented the bar-code scanner they would have a case.

[Paul C. Jesup]

No, can you be more specific?

Sorry no, I vaguely remember a ruling that software was covered by copyright laws. That is why I asked.

[LurkingSince'98]

hey super,

I don't know where your coming from so I'll just call it as I see it.

you said "The key to eBay isn't the "idea". It's the investment of time and effort into implementation and marketing."

To which I reply that you are dead wrong. Why?

First the constitution of the US, which grants a patent where the rights to a MONOPOLY to the patent holder (whether it be idea, implementation, prototype etc.) who is the first to conceive and apply; not first to file as in so many other countries, the first to conceive and apply.

Second, E-bay made the BIG mistake of not checking prior art for their little unoriginal idea. The mistake cost them $5 mil. Their loss the patent holders gain. So the constitution says your wrong, patent law says your wrong, the trial judge syas your wrong, and now the Supreme Court says your wrong. So actually that makes you wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. You must get a clue.

PS if your little idea for RAM to bus is novel, and teaches new art - then patent it.

The problem is no one would be interested in it as you stated.

You would never get an E-bay to infringe, but if they did you could sue and win if they were dumb enough to try and implement it without license from you.

Lurking'

[jess35]

Don't you think there's a problem with issued patents being too broad?

[LurkingSince'98]

I think there are good patents and bad patents, patents that are too broad and patents that are too narrow.

The thing about patents is that are they are no good until they are adjudicated, tried and found by a court of competent jurisdiction, to be good and valuable and infringed upon. When that happens you have a good patent. Until then you just have a patent.

The patent in the article is about as good as it gets. Maybe E-bay disagrees; but(too bad - so sad) they LOST in court.

Lurking'

[Atlas Sneezed]

>>So as the Constitution stands you believe the makers of the "Jetson's" have invented the flying car?

Don't be silly. The concept of a flying car is not patentable. But there may be an invention that enables cars to fly, which may be patentable.

>>I can't wait to patent the cure for cancer. Why should I have to actually implement it first?

If you invent it to a level where your patent application provides compete instructions on how your invention can be implemented to cure cancer, then you will deserve your patent, and deserve your billions, and deserve the thanks of a grateful world. What's the problem with that?

[AndyTheBear]

If you invent it to a level where your patent application provides compete instructions on how your invention can be implemented to cure cancer, then you will deserve your patent, and deserve your billions, and deserve the thanks of a grateful world. What's the problem with that?

<sarcasm>But I want money for just having the idea of a flying car and of curing cancer. They are big ideas!</sarcasm>

But as I had said (before you obliged me to be silly to make a point) big ideas are a dime a dozen. I think we both agree that detailed not obvious plans that contribute to success should be rewarded, but I just don't think that "software" companies that have more lawyers then engineers are into that business.

[Atlas Sneezed]

big ideas are a dime a dozen

---

And people who actually read and understand patents (as opposed to trusting business writers) know that such ideas are unpatentable.