tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post4976230769311193128..comments2023-11-05T06:06:12.057-06:00Comments on The 271 Patent Blog: Are We Heading for a "Subprime Patent Crisis"?Two-Seventy-One Patent Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02481083706071978817noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-90477120228151559612008-08-26T17:35:00.000-05:002008-08-26T17:35:00.000-05:00Extremes in either direction are often not good. ...Extremes in either direction are often not good. Software patents are no exception, however, they are just a subset of every other type of novel method or system, etc.<BR/><BR/>As the Supreme Court has already stated ... just because a process is implemented over a computer does not make it unpatentable. If it is new and unobvious (and is within 35 USC 101, i.e. non-abstract), then it is patentable.<BR/><BR/>The failing of the Patent Office, in my opinion, is that they are trying to use 103 (obviousness) arguments while citing 101 (abstract) arguments. They should be saying why it is obvious to carry out certain processes... whether computer implemented or not ... saying they are abstract when they're not is a cop out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-62208258387807224142008-08-19T09:00:00.000-05:002008-08-19T09:00:00.000-05:00Peter,In the full article ( link here )the author ...Peter,<BR/><BR/>In the full article ( <A HREF="http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-81836/subprime-patents" REL="nofollow">link here</A> )the author admits he is using "psychological reasonings" to press his point.<BR/><BR/>Indeed there is nothing substantive in his rantings. The home mortgage business is not analogous in any way to the obtaining of a patent.<BR/><BR/>1) Neither lender nor borrower have to invent anything, let alone 101 subject matter<BR/><BR/>2) The borrower does not go before an "examiner" to argue the novelty and nonobviousness of his case<BR/><BR/>3) The borrower is not subject to reexamination or court review of the loan<BR/><BR/>4) Mortgages do not arise under Article I section 8, clause 8 of the US Constitution<BR/><BR/>The author is using psychological trickery to fool those who know nothing about patents (software developers) into "feeling" that they understand patents. Gee, now I get it, a patent is just like a home loan and a software patent is just like a subprime home loan.<BR/><BR/>We get it too. Software developers are "people". And people can be easily manipulated by psychological manipulations and the trickery of resonant words.Step Backhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-90117056950582747872008-08-19T06:54:00.000-05:002008-08-19T06:54:00.000-05:00I agree with Patent Hawk. This clown makes a numb...I agree with Patent Hawk. This clown makes a number of flat out wrong assertions and then draws conclusions from them.<BR/><BR/>The software industry is full of uninventive drones.<BR/><BR/>Clearly open source/free software group does not understand the purpose of patents. The purpose is to offer an incentive to an inventor to put the time, work, and money into fully disclosing the invention for the purpose of advancing the arts. The cost of a patent, both labor and to file for the patent can easily top $100,000 and may even represent millions of dollars.<BR/> <BR/>Software hacks do nothing to advance the collective arts. Rather they code for their own profit and rationalize that other's creations should be socialized for their selfish interests. Contrary to their beliefs, recoding someone else's invention in a marginally different way does not make the person doing so an inventor.<BR/> <BR/>What is really ironic is that the software cult shares the same goals as the corporate patent pirates and that both groups have an entitlement mentality. In both cases they are unimaginative dullards who lack ethics. That sounds to me like their mentalities are very similar to those whom we incarcerate. Now there is a good idea.<BR/><BR/>Ronald J. Riley,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Speaking only on my own behalf.<BR/>Affiliations:<BR/>President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org<BR/>Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org<BR/>Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org<BR/>President - Alliance for American Innovation<BR/>Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel<BR/>Washington, DC<BR/>Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.Ronald J Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14901651637020845897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-55829466347601670902008-08-18T12:58:00.000-05:002008-08-18T12:58:00.000-05:00Why would you cover the rantings of a nobody lunat...Why would you cover the rantings of a nobody lunatic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com