-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

New Senate Patent Reform Bill Details Released 

,----[ Quote ]
| Supplemental Examinations: Permits a 
| patent holder to provide additional, 
| potentially material prior art regarding 
| the patent to the PTO. If the PTO 
| considers the information and determines 
| it has no effect on patentability, that 
| additional information cannot serve as the 
| basis for an inequitable conduct claim 
| later in court. The information must be 
| presented to the PTO and any reexamination 
| must be completed prior to litigation.
`----

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/03/04/new-senate-patent-reform-bill-details-released/

Patent Reform Bill Released: More Of The Same

,----[ Quote ]
| It still tries to switch the US to a 
| "first to file" system, rather than "first 
| to invent" -- which just encourages more 
| patents being filed faster, rather than 
| better patents being filed. It has the 
| same (controversial) damages setup as last 
| year, which would be useful in limiting 
| damages from infringement, but which many 
| special interests hate.
`----

http://techdirt.com/articles/20100305/0137448428.shtml

Rambus says two patents affirmed in Nvidia fight

,----[ Quote ]
| Memory chip designer Rambus Inc (RMBS.O) 
| said the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 
| had affirmed two of three patents at the 
| center of a legal dispute over whether 
| graphics chip maker Nvidia Corp (NVDA.O) 
| infringed on Rambus technology.
`----

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0419206820100304


Recent:

How Hard Is It To Realize That One-Click Buying Doesn't Deserve A Patent?

,----[ Quote ]
| Amazon and Jeff Bezos (who a decade ago was
| a founder of a project to bust bogus
| patents) have aggressively fought to keep
| the patent alive. And so we've now entered
| the fifth year of the review process, which
| seems to involve some rather annoyed USPTO
| patent examiners, who are fed up with what
| appears to be Amazon simply dumping
| busywork on the examiners to avoid a final
| rejection of the patent.
`----

http://techdirt.com/articles/20100223/0249208265.shtml
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkuS9LoACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4DmwCcCh84HF/O8tf6rnNYKbaZMkHz
C+0AoJp4PfJu3AV2GvgdC7HLt2a8W8N9
=3jHf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> How Hard Is It To Realize That One-Click Buying Doesn't Deserve A
> Patent?
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
>> Amazon and Jeff Bezos (who a decade ago was a founder of a project
>> to bust bogus patents) have aggressively fought to keep the patent
>> alive. And so we've now entered the fifth year of the review
>> process, which seems to involve some rather annoyed USPTO patent
>> examiners, who are fed up with what appears to be Amazon simply
>> dumping busywork on the examiners to avoid a final rejection of the
>> patent.
> `----
> 
> http://techdirt.com/articles/20100223/0249208265.shtml

If one looks at the US Democratic Party will note that many of the
politicians are lawyers.  The US apparently has become a nation "of and
for and by" the lawyers.

I see ambiguities in law, in code compliance organisations, in
professional qualification organisations.  Is the ambiguities, which
used to not be there, there for a purpose?  Yes.  It is to keep lawyers
employed.

Purpose of software patents is to keep the legal profession employed.

Many of the laws have been purposely constructed to obstruct, rather
than support justice.  We see how the criminal element is allowed to
escape conviction, because of technicalities, etc.  Yet, it seems the
honest and upright risk conviction, harassment, financial ruin, etc.

The only ones who can afford these type lawsuits are the monopolies,
large corporations, etc.  The little guy will most likely fold, because
the legal expenses and lack of swiftness in due process will put them
out of business.

I still find it hard to believe how someone can patent the use of
software XOR.  I used the same in an algorithm some 22 years ago, to
sift through a data acquisition and load cell data base and do channel
type tallies.

Such use is truly not innovative enough for a patent.  Yet, it only
becomes food for lawyers and to justify the moronic.

I almost think a foreign government would have to occupy US, to
straighten it out.  Perhaps we are not that far along from the truth.

-- 
HPT