patentnerd

6 ms·

1.
by patentnerd 13y ago
Hi, I'm a patent examiner. I won't apologize for the agency, we have more than our share of problems, but I also think we get more than our share of criticism for bad patents. The PTO simply has no ability to change patent law. We apply it
2.
by patentnerd 14y ago
The article has no links, but I'm assuming they're referring to the patents linked in this article: http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/15/google-glasses-design-pat... These are design patents, meaning they protect the look of the glasses, NO
3.
by patentnerd 15y ago
I agree that the algorithm would have been published anyway, since it was part of Page's PhD work, I believe. But I disagree that the patent hasn't been used for "good." Google has been a huge net positive in the development of the Internet
4.
by patentnerd 15y ago
How about the Google Pagerank patent? http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6285999 It explains the primary algorithm behind Google Search. I suppose it could have been kept as a trade secret all these years, if not for the patent system.
5.
by patentnerd 15y ago
To be clear, patent "eligibility" usually refers to the requirements of 35 USC 101, i.e. any new and useful method or machine. Novelty and obviousness come later, hence OP's term "potentially patentable." The point is that pretty much any s
6.
by patentnerd 15y ago
There is a prior user defense, see 35 USC 273. Unfortunately, in its current form it is essentially useless, as it only applies to method claims, and nearly all patents contain both product and method claims. However, the House version of t
7.
by patentnerd 15y ago
It is still possible to protect an invention as a trade secret. Of course, if someone later independently invents and files, they get the patent. The earlier user is immune from infringement of the patent under the "prior user defense", tho
8.
by patentnerd 15y ago
I'm not sure that Paul is that great of a guy either. His company is a bit of a patent troll, for one. Here are some his "inventions": http://bit.ly/dXsk5P
9.
by patentnerd 15y ago
> He quotes Apple's legal papers in which they clearly state... You mean he quotes Apple's attorney's quotation of a New York Times reporter? It's not quite so clear that this is Apple's statement, and reading the quote in context doesn