Vonage - Verizon Judgement Remanded > Hmm...so...

Hmm...so...

reply to onebadmofo

Vonage

"Our initial assessment is that they will all die."

Call me stupid, but I'm buying more stock

Its a bargain right now and there ain't much to lose if it hits the floor...

No kidding!
Some of us lost more than we care to admit with SunRocket.
Why not drop a few bucks on some stock?
--
TeleBlend- Your Local Broadband Phone Company????

reply to onebadmofo

Re: Hmm...so...

reply to onebadmofo
Vonage is HORRID (I refer to their so called customer service); I would sooner use a walkie talkie than their service; switched to VIATALK and have never looked back..next year switching to CELL phone and eliminating home line altogether.

-Dan

reply to KSC5190

When said patents aren't so broad. Patents should cover specific items or products, not general ideas.

And who and how do you think the breadth of a patent should be limited?

Do you call out each and every element in an invention, making it a picture claim that is likely easily designed around or do you only put in the critical elements?

Who defines which are the critical elements?

You have to admit there are some seriously broad-worded patents out there that do little more than introduce an idea for something rather than showing an actual invention or application that shows proof of concept. It shouldn't be that hard for the patent office to ask "how is this done?" when a broad patent comes up. This way if somebody else has the same idea, but the methodology is different then the patent hasn't been violated.

Limits can be put into place, and should be.

There are certainly broadly worded patents out there--I agree.

But again, how narrow should the claims be written? I can make something enabling through fairly vague wording, or I can put in every nut and bolt in there. The patent laws state that a patent is for enabling one skilled in the art to practice the invention. If that's the case, I don't have to be terribly specific. The courts have held that requiring some experimentation by the non-patentee is okay.

So, is it okay to claim a fastener in a patent, or do I have to specifically call out a screw, bolt, rivet, nail. And if so, do I have to then call out a screw having a star shaped head or a slot? Who decides that?

It's easy to cry out for limits, but actual implementation is unbelievable difficult. Every day in my job I come up against patent that we believe are too broad. But yet, when we engage searchers and I search as well, we can't 100% always seem to come up with the prior art that would invalidate these seemingly overbroad patents.

A system where you limit patents to overly narrow claim breadth is a sure fire way to limit innovation.

The solution isn't to make patent approvals overly narrow. Just to have an actual technology or methodology behind it. For instance a patent simply stating a claim to the technology that allows animation and interactive menus in real time without the use of .gifs or frames is overly broad. A patent with the coding for Flash is pretty direct. I feel that something beyond just staking a claim to a concept should be required in order to get a patent.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything that you're saying. I just keep going back to how and who will determine how narrowly the claims should be either drafted or construed.

Many years ago, the word "means" was narrowed down significantly in the US. That is, if you use the word means, it encompasses only the exact apparatus or method discussed in the spec. Until then, means encompassed all alternatives.

I suppose we could limit to the exact embodiment shown in the spec. I think it would be a disincentive to inventors though.

Regardless of all this, patent reform is slowly but surely happening, both in the prosecution and litigation areas.

I guess it boils down to the people approving the patents to know where to draw the line. Too wide a berth and you have the problems we have now. Too narrow and, as you said, there is a lack of incentive to create. I am not a patent expert so I'm not the one who should make the call. That being said my layman's eyes have seen some pretty outrageous claims based on patents that even I consider ridiculous.

Patent reform is the starting point. Finding humans who aren't as fallible on giving just anybody that little piece of intellectual property gold is the tricky part.

Agreed. But, don't even get me started on the patent examiners . . .

lol. Think about all the same reasons you can't find knowledgable tech people at Circuit City or Best Buy and you have the same reason (other than for a few exceptions) why you can't find very good examiners.

That's why I'm dubious about changing the patent system. Without more money you can't hire good examiners. And with more and more filings each year, you have fewer and fewer good examiners.

Language issues are not an insignificant problem either.