Page All: Viewing All Pages
Page 1
When you have someone that can try to sue for an obvious business method patent, the system is flawed. It is worse than that. This dude thinks that he can patent the method of providing marketing for a company for a profit. Wow, marketing for a company? How novel... And how would that ever be patentable?
That's the problem with judges, they don't answer to anyone.
When you have someone that can try to sue for an obvious business method patent, the system is flawed. It is worse than that. This dude thinks that he can patent the method of providing marketing for a company for a profit. Wow, marketing for a company? How novel... And how would that ever be patentable?
Quote
There you go, folks. Reductio ad absurdum: a company is a machine, or at least analogous to one, kinda sorta like one. Therefore any process or method they come up with to do business would be patentable, presumably, in that universe. Well. Could someone please patent what Wall Street just did to the economy, and then refuse to license the "invention", so as to prevent those dudes from ever doing it again? Or just patent flaming greed, will you, somebody? Do the rest of us a favor and get it off the table or at least constrained.
The court rejected that claim about a company being analogous to a machine, but Justice Pauline Newman, while agreeing with the majority, nevertheless argued that it's good for the economy to have business methods patents, so we shouldn't go too far in limiting them. *Too far*?!
That's the problem with judges, they don't answer to anyone.