Comments on: Patently Obvious http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/2006/11/02/patently-obvious/ dynamic typeof() guy Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:02:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Peter Bromberg http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/2006/11/02/patently-obvious/comment-page-1/#comment-27980 Peter Bromberg Mon, 06 Nov 2006 02:07:19 +0000 http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/?p=623#comment-27980 Brent, I've blogged about this practice of what I call "patent parking" or "patent extortion" several times (the link is to the most recent one). We have a Patent & Trademark Office in the US that is "broken" - they simply do not have the resources or technical expertise to do the job right. Brent,
I’ve blogged about this practice of what I call “patent parking” or “patent extortion” several times (the link is to the most recent one). We have a Patent & Trademark Office in the US that is “broken” – they simply do not have the resources or technical expertise to do the job right.

]]> By: brentashley » Blog Archive » A Patent should pass a test of Obviousness http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/2006/11/02/patently-obvious/comment-page-1/#comment-27913 brentashley » Blog Archive » A Patent should pass a test of Obviousness Sun, 05 Nov 2006 21:39:22 +0000 http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/?p=623#comment-27913 [...] dynamic typeof() guy « Patently Obvious A Patent should pass a test of Obviousness November 5th,2006 [...] [...] dynamic typeof() guy « Patently Obvious A Patent should pass a test of Obviousness November 5th,2006 [...]

]]> By: brent http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/2006/11/02/patently-obvious/comment-page-1/#comment-27798 brent Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:00:25 +0000 http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/?p=623#comment-27798 Thanks for the observations, Gary, very insightful. I have no information that there are any efforts being made to enforce the patent. It's possible they too understand that at this point it's quite easy to demonstrate that many people are using the techniques without having been exposed to the patent - i.e. it was such an obvious use of the constituent components that no exclusive published recipe was necessary. Thanks for the observations, Gary, very insightful.

I have no information that there are any efforts being made to enforce the patent. It’s possible they too understand that at this point it’s quite easy to demonstrate that many people are using the techniques without having been exposed to the patent – i.e. it was such an obvious use of the constituent components that no exclusive published recipe was necessary.

]]> By: Gary Gex http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/2006/11/02/patently-obvious/comment-page-1/#comment-27782 Gary Gex Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:16:13 +0000 http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/?p=623#comment-27782 Without commenting on the actual validity of the patent, two observations: First, the issued patent claimed priority to a provisional “placeholder” application filed on Dec. 1, 2000 – this means that the patent examiner at the PTO evaluated the merits of the patent application based on what was available before that date. If the examiner did not find evidence that anyone was “doing” what the patent applicants claimed as of Nov. 30, 2000 or earlier, he or she would have come to the conclusion that it was novel. This seems to be shored up since Brent said, “Numerous people have ‘discovered’ and exploited the value in using the script tag to get code and data on the fly since that time.” (emphasis added) Second, Brent wrote, “It’s an obvious logical use of the functionality for which it was designed.” Apparently, this is where the obviousness assault should have been levied by the examiner. It could be that this is where any successful invalidity challenge in court would occur. Brent correctly notes that the patentee “has the upper hand;” an issued patent is presumed valid and can be found invalid in the face of clear and convincing evidence that it was not novel or it was obvious. This is a tough standard to meet, but note that more than one patent litigation has terminated very early if there is clear evidence of prior art which renders a patent invalid. So, it could well be that this particular patent will not survive if challenged. Without commenting on the actual validity of the patent, two observations: First, the issued patent claimed priority to a provisional “placeholder” application filed on Dec. 1, 2000 – this means that the patent examiner at the PTO evaluated the merits of the patent application based on what was available before that date. If the examiner did not find evidence that anyone was “doing” what the patent applicants claimed as of Nov. 30, 2000 or earlier, he or she would have come to the conclusion that it was novel. This seems to be shored up since Brent said, “Numerous people have ‘discovered’ and exploited the value in using the script tag to get code and data on the fly since that time.” (emphasis added)

Second, Brent wrote, “It’s an obvious logical use of the functionality for which it was designed.” Apparently, this is where the obviousness assault should have been levied by the examiner. It could be that this is where any successful invalidity challenge in court would occur. Brent correctly notes that the patentee “has the upper hand;” an issued patent is presumed valid and can be found invalid in the face of clear and convincing evidence that it was not novel or it was obvious. This is a tough standard to meet, but note that more than one patent litigation has terminated very early if there is clear evidence of prior art which renders a patent invalid.

So, it could well be that this particular patent will not survive if challenged.

]]> By: Nicholas C. Zakas http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/2006/11/02/patently-obvious/comment-page-1/#comment-27607 Nicholas C. Zakas Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:01:40 +0000 http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/?p=623#comment-27607 Argh, this is exactly why I hate software patents. How can the USPTO actually accept a patent for a piece of technology that's essentially being used the way that it was intended to be used. I wonder when someone will submit a patent for using XMLHttpRequest to retrieve data from the server. Reminds me of a while back when a museum tried to patent the use of a separate frame for navigating a web site. Oy. Argh, this is exactly why I hate software patents. How can the USPTO actually accept a patent for a piece of technology that’s essentially being used the way that it was intended to be used. I wonder when someone will submit a patent for using XMLHttpRequest to retrieve data from the server. Reminds me of a while back when a museum tried to patent the use of a separate frame for navigating a web site. Oy.

]]> By: samsoum http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/2006/11/02/patently-obvious/comment-page-1/#comment-27597 samsoum Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:49:19 +0000 http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/?p=623#comment-27597 What is this non sense? Does this mean that if someone uses the style attribute in a HTML tag and using CSS, creates a unique presentation in the html page? Nobody else is allowed to use that? Isn't that what the tag is designed to accomplish? How can this patent get awarded? Anybody knows the process followed by the government to award a patent? What is this non sense? Does this mean that if someone uses the style attribute in a HTML tag and using CSS, creates a unique presentation in the html page? Nobody else is allowed to use that? Isn’t that what the tag is designed to accomplish? How can this patent get awarded? Anybody knows the process followed by the government to award a patent?

]]> By: Tech and Science News Updates! » Blog Archive » If HTML Were Invented Today, Someone Would Try To Patent It http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/2006/11/02/patently-obvious/comment-page-1/#comment-27594 Tech and Science News Updates! » Blog Archive » If HTML Were Invented Today, Someone Would Try To Patent It Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:09:21 +0000 http://www.ashleyit.com/blogs/brentashley/?p=623#comment-27594 [...] Another day, another silly patent application. John points us to a blog post about a a bizarre patent application to patent what the <script> tag is often used for. The patent application in question is for a method of <script> based remote JavaScript function call of web page. The blog post is by Brent Ashley who notes not only is the patent quite obvious, on a technique that the tag was designed to do and is used by many people, the actual code used in the patent application just so happens to have been copied directly from his own published code. So, not only are they trying to patent a patently obvious idea, they’re using someone else’s code to do so. Has anyone tried patenting HTML yet? [...] [...] Another day, another silly patent application. John points us to a blog post about a a bizarre patent application to patent what the <script> tag is often used for. The patent application in question is for a method of <script> based remote JavaScript function call of web page. The blog post is by Brent Ashley who notes not only is the patent quite obvious, on a technique that the tag was designed to do and is used by many people, the actual code used in the patent application just so happens to have been copied directly from his own published code. So, not only are they trying to patent a patently obvious idea, they’re using someone else’s code to do so. Has anyone tried patenting HTML yet? [...]

]]>