Jackpot Federal Court Appeal won

[The Real Andy]

Perhaps I wont need that floating point library for the rabbit yet!

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2005/90.html

 

[Winfield Hill]

The Real Andy wrote...

Perhaps I wont need that floating point library for the rabbit yet!
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2005/90.html

Three- or four-sentence executive summary, please.

 

[Quack]

Put it in a nutshell? I hate reading that much legal jargon.
We are engineers not lawyers .

Alex.

 

[Tim Shoppa]

Three- or four-sentence executive summary, please.

My reading is that "In Australia, you cannot patent a statistics
formula".

Tim.

 

[Winfield Hill]

Tim Shoppa wrote...

My reading is that "In Australia, you cannot patent a
statistics formula".

Yet. :>(

 

[Tim Shoppa]

Yet. :>(

Actually, they did patent it, but the court seems to have ruled that
their patent cannot stop others from implementing the same obvious
formula in their equipment.

Tim.

 

[Terry Given]

Actually, they did patent it, but the court seems to have ruled that
their patent cannot stop others from implementing the same obvious
formula in their equipment.

Tim.

its pretty scary really, the number of patents which IMO are blindingly
obvious to anyone with a modicum of skill. Rudy Severns has written some
hilarious stuff on bullshit patents. Most things have been thought of
before.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Fred Bloggs]

My reading is that "In Australia, you cannot patent a statistics
formula".

Tim.

You don't seem to be reading very well then- the Court upheld the patent
infringement claim of the original plaintiff, Neurizon or whoever.
Jupiter, the defendant, was held to be in infringement. When Jupiter
appealed, they become the appellant, and the original plaintiff became
the respondent before the Appeals Court. Like who gives a damn about
this redneck shyte in Queensland...

 

[Rich Grise]

its pretty scary really, the number of patents which IMO are blindingly
obvious to anyone with a modicum of skill. Rudy Severns has written some
hilarious stuff on bullshit patents. Most things have been thought of
before.

Some years ago, there was a newspaper or newsmagazine article on some
guy who accidentally patented the wheelbarrow. He had applied for one
on some kind of add-on swivel handles, to make it easier to dump,
but the patent office issued a patent for the whole thing. Presumably,
since there was no prior art on a common wheelbarrow, and I'm guessing
that the Harvard-educated patent attorneys had never seen the outside
of an ivied hall or chauffeured limo, the idea looked novel to them.
;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Ben Bradley]

Some years ago, there was a newspaper or newsmagazine article on some
guy who accidentally patented the wheelbarrow. He had applied for one
on some kind of add-on swivel handles, to make it easier to dump,
but the patent office issued a patent for the whole thing.

How can that happen? The application spells out each thing that is
being claimed, how can the patent office issue something different?

 

[keith]

its pretty scary really, the number of patents which IMO are blindingly
obvious to anyone with a modicum of skill.

A lot of really *great* ideas are "blindingly obvious" once you've seen
them. This isn't a fair measure of "patent-worthyness".

Rudy Severns has written some
hilarious stuff on bullshit patents. Most things have been thought of
before.

I've seen some really dumb ones. ... like the cat exercise toy (a LASER
pointer). I toes work! ;-)

 

[keith]

How can that happen? The application spells out each thing that is
being claimed, how can the patent office issue something different?

Indeed. The "teachings" are a different beast than the "claims". The
teachings _may_ have described the wheelbarrow, but that doesn't mean
that a patent was issued for a "wheelbarrow". I want a cite here (a
patent number will do). This makes no sense at all.

 

[Ben Bradley]

A lot of really *great* ideas are "blindingly obvious" once you've seen
them. This isn't a fair measure of "patent-worthyness".

There have been horrible patents on obvious things as well, check
out the patent on how to grow brocolli.

 

[keith]

There have been horrible patents on obvious things as well, check
out the patent on how to grow brocolli.

I've seen some wild ones too (like the restroom queueing device), but
"obvious" isn't a good measure of a patent. In fact I like to collect
goofy patents. I did a search for "brocolli" in the title, abstract, and
claims. The only thing I come up with is: "US4292784: Field crop
harvesting and loading machine".

 

[Jim Thompson]

I've seen some wild ones too (like the restroom queueing device), but
"obvious" isn't a good measure of a patent. In fact I like to collect
goofy patents. I did a search for "brocolli" in the title, abstract, and
claims. The only thing I come up with is: "US4292784: Field crop
harvesting and loading machine".

A lot of the previous comments I've seen here seem to indicate
mumblings from those who've never seen a patent.

The patent is only granted for the claims of the applicant, minus what
the examiner disallows. The examiner never adds claims.

There are indeed many goofy patents. Keep in mind that patent
examiners don't come from Harvard Law School, they are government
employees... like ALL government bureaucrats, they are the
lowest-of-the-low, unable to get employment as burger flippers... some
are even so lowest-of-the-low that they can't get employment at Fry's
;-)

All a patent grants to you is the right to defend it against
challengers.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Walter Harley]

I've seen some wild ones too (like the restroom queueing device), but
"obvious" isn't a good measure of a patent. In fact I like to collect
goofy patents. I did a search for "brocolli" in the title, abstract, and
claims. The only thing I come up with is: "US4292784: Field crop
harvesting and loading machine".

Try spelling it "broccoli"?

 

[keith]

Try spelling it "broccoli"?

That's what I get for cut-n-paste...

Ok, USD341635 is pretty weak (though I think Mr. Potatohead is prior
art . I don't see anything that comes close to telling one how to "grow
brocolli" (sic):

US6118046 Inbred broccoli line KI-13 capable of combining with
other inbred broccoli to produce superior commercial cultivar
(varieties)
US6784345 Heat tolerant broccoli
US6693229 Inbred broccoli line VBC-406
US6689942 Inbred broccoli line BRM50-3905
US6294715 Heat tolerant broccoli
US6274793 Inbred broccoli line 194-6-2CMS
US5945582 Inbred broccoli line BC-403
US5858432 Methods for shipping broccoli without ice
US5731505 Inbred broccoli line SA-5
US5588278 Broccoli banding machine
US5470602 Broccoli head trimming apparatus and method
US5277107 Trimmer for vegetables including broccoli
USD341635 Doll resembling a broccoli
US5182125 Product produced by process of freezing and ice glazing
broccoli
US5168801 Apparatus for slicing broccoli and the like into spears
US5156874 Method for slicing broccoli and the like into spears
US5026562 Method of freezing and ice glazing broccoli
US4773324 Broccoli trimming machine
US4658714 Apparatus for cutting broccoli and other long stemmed vegetables
US4480536 Broccoli bunching and cutting apparatus
US4262944 Broccoli bunching and tying machine
US4203180 Holder for vegetables such as broccoli
US4168642 Broccoli quartering machine
US4095391 Apparatus for bunching broccoli
US4041672 Apparatus for bunching broccoli and a method therefor
US3690049 BROCCOLI HARVESTER
US3646977 BROCCOLI TRIMMING MACHINE

 

[keith]

A lot of the previous comments I've seen here seem to indicate
mumblings from those who've never seen a patent.

There is a lot of that running around. The USPTO is badly broken, but
most of the bitches I see don't even come close to the problem, much less
a solution. There *are* people trying to fix the problems. One hopes
they don't make more of a mess.

The patent is only granted for the claims of the applicant, minus what
the examiner disallows. The examiner never adds claims.

Sure, and the "teachings" aren't claims. Much in the teachings may
well be known art.

There are indeed many goofy patents. Keep in mind that patent examiners
don't come from Harvard Law School, they are government employees...
like ALL government bureaucrats, they are the lowest-of-the-low, unable
to get employment as burger flippers... some are even so
lowest-of-the-low that they can't get employment at Fry's ;-)

Some are Harvard Law grads, doing time before getting snapped up by
industry.

All a patent grants to you is the right to defend it against
challengers.

It does give the upper hand. The courts tend to believe the USPTO knows
what it's doing. How many judges (or jurrors) know a circuit from a
broccoli?

 

[Jim Thompson]

There is a lot of that running around. The USPTO is badly broken, but
most of the bitches I see don't even come close to the problem, much less
a solution. There *are* people trying to fix the problems. One hopes
they don't make more of a mess.


Sure, and the "teachings" aren't claims. Much in the teachings may
well be known art.


Some are Harvard Law grads, doing time before getting snapped up by
industry.


It does give the upper hand. The courts tend to believe the USPTO knows
what it's doing. How many judges (or jurrors) know a circuit from a
broccoli?

Actually, except for battles royale between the really big guys who
have money and lawyers to burn, most patent disputes are settled via
arbitration.

The arbitration panels are typically patent attorneys with specialties
in the area of dispute.

I've served as expert witness on many of these.

One particular case comes to mind where I warned the client that the
panel might ask a certain question. "If they do, I can not lie, and
you're doomed."

I suggested that the client consider a settlement, but they declined.

The arbitrators asked the deadly question, and my clients lost, just
as predicted.

Then I had to threaten suit to get paid ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Ben Bradley]

That's what I get for cut-n-paste...

Soory about my speeling...

Ok, USD341635 is pretty weak (though I think Mr. Potatohead is prior
art . I don't see anything that comes close to telling one how to "grow
brocolli" (sic):

Are invalidated patents kept in the database and remain searchable?
This is the story I was thinking of. Perntinent quote: "Patent
#5,968,567 (along with #5,725,895 and #5,968,505) gave the JHU Drs.
sole rights to Broccoli Sprout production."

http://www.sproutpeople.com/print/broc.html