[Discuss] The America Invents Act

[hsuanyeh at yahoo.com (Hsuan-Yeh Chang)]

> I think you miss the point of patents, most of what is being patented is "obvious" to those skilled in the art, but the patent examiners to do 
not have the ability to reject the patent without a legally defensible 
reason. I have a friend in the US patent office and he has issues with 
patents he has to approve, but doesn't have the ability to disallow 
them.

I also think you miss my point.? By filing a patent application and getting it published, your Examiner friend would have citations to reject late comer's claims.? Should the open source community started to file patent applications in the few decades, there would have sufficient number of references to knock out those what you called "obvious" patents.? Unfortunately, the open source community has been playing ostrich and willfully disregarded the facts that, today, they can get a patent application published and serve for prior art purposes for less than $200 of official fee (if less than 100 pages)...? If the open source developer is rich enough to pursue a patent, then he/she is free to grant or donate a non-exclusive license of his/her patent right to the community.? Without having any patent rights handy, the open source community will forever be a victim.? 


PS. I think I should better shot up on this thread after this post.? Thanks everyone for reading my nonsenses.


HYC



________________________________
From: Mark Woodward <markw at mohawksoft.com>
To: discuss at blu.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Discuss] The America Invents Act

On 09/28/2011 02:13 PM, Hsuan-Yeh Chang wrote:
> Thanks for challenging my point of view by attacking my profession.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for your profession. I've had to deal with enough lawyers to realize that it must be one of the rings in Dante's Inferno. "IP" law is a terrible mess BECAUSE of the practicing lawyers. So, sorry, you can feign injury somewhere else.
> I am only trying to help the open source community to fight against the biggies.? If you believe that RMS in his lifetime can convince the Congress to abolish software patents, please do so.? It's your freedom guaranteed by the US constitution.
I agree.
> 
> How much money do you think M$ and others have spent on filing software patent applications in the Patent Office?? How much money do you think M$ has spent on lobbying your representative elected by your votes?? For at least this very reason, I don't believe Congress will abolish software patents any time sooner.
Again, I agree.
> 
> This country protects independent inventors more than most other countries in the world.? If anyone has a good idea, regardless of whether the person is poor or rich, and regardless of whether the person is opening source code or not, the person is equally capable of seeking patent protection than anyone else.
You are forgetting the cost of filing a patent. In this economy, how many engineers are unemployed and working on ideas and inventions? Furthermore, "patents" are useless for making money these days. Patents are only useful for suing someone who has money. You can thank your profession for making a mockery out of the patent process.

> If you choose to donate your invention to the public and give up your rights, that's again your freedom.? But if you exercise your freedom by giving up your legal rights, how can you ask the Congress to change the law simply because of your generosity?
It isn't generosity at all. Its self preservation. If I "publish" my idea, it means I can actually use it. Otherwise someone else will patent it.

I think you miss the point of patents, most of what is being patented is "obvious" to those skilled in the art, but the patent examiners to do not have the ability to reject the patent without a legally defensible reason. I have a friend in the US patent office and he has issues with patents he has to approve, but doesn't have the ability to disallow them.

So, by publishing everything, it is not generosity, it is protecting ourselves. We won't make money without hard work, but it allows us to capitalize on our hardwork without worrying about being sued by a troll who is also a member of your profession.
> Not all lawyers are necessarily bad lawyers.
Really? Ever been divorced? Ever been sued? I have a personal different opinion.
> President Lincoln was a lawyer and he ended slavery.
At the cost of how many thousands of lives? Was there no other way?
>? ? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a lawyer and he ended segregation in the United States.? There are countless number of lawyers who have contributed to the advances of this country...

Yes, but not by practicing law, by protesting against it.
> 
> HYC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Derek Martin<invalid at pizzashack.org>
> To: Hsuan-Yeh Chang<hsuanyeh at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "discuss at blu.org"<discuss at blu.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 1:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] The America Invents Act
> 
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 08:07:43AM -0700, Hsuan-Yeh Chang wrote:
>> This has been changed by AIA and recent court decisions.? See, for example, http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/02/patent-reform-act-of-2011-an-overview.html
>> 
>> Below are some quotes from above link:
> [...]
>> What you said has been out dated by Obama's signature of AIA...
> You're overlooking some pretty glaring practical issues with your
> argument.? You're quoting a summary of the act written by patent
> lawyers.? They have every incentive to try to make you think that
> patents are good for you: patents are good for THEM.? You're also
> failing to recognize that what the law literally states is subject to
> interpretation by lawyers, judges, and often jurors, who are fallible
> and may also have their own agenda.? Any law suit that happens in
> practice will usually be won by the guy with the best lawyers, which
> usually means the guy with the most money, i.e.? not the OSS software
> developer.? Or, actually, it usually comes down to who has the deepest
> pockets, because patent trials are EXPENSIVE.? Microsoft has vastly
> more resources than you do, and can litigate a suit against you until
> you no longer have the funds to defend yourself, or until you can't
> afford to miss any more work, at which point, YOU LOSE, regardless of
> whose side the law is actually on.? The law is a tool best leveraged
> by those with lots of money.
> 
> RMS addressed most of this in his video also, again in much better
> terms that I have.
> 
> I'm starting to think that you are yourself a patent lawyer or
> employee of the SBA.? If you're not, then YOU represent the biggest
> challenge to making REAL software patent reform happen:? If we can't
> get people who actually understand software to agree that they are bad
> for us (and in fact everyone), we'll never convince people who
> understand software much less well.
> 

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss