5 ms·
I'm guessing they'll take this opportunity to somehow find a way to extend it even further. Perhaps that Velvin fellow was onto something with regards to prior
by noonespecial 14y ago
I'm guessing they'll take this opportunity to somehow find a way to extend it even further. Perhaps that Velvin fellow was onto something with regards to prior art being required to run on the same CPU to be considered valid?
- wtallis 14y agoIf they want to make prior art architecture-dependent, I'm all for it, as long as they make infringement similarly architecture-dependent. Then we can all just switch architecture to 64-bit ARM and get rid of all existing software patents, and port as much as possible to establish a broad base of unpatentable prior art on that architecture.
- WildUtah 14y agoI don't think you understand the who-whom here. Requiring prior art to be strictly identical is good for patent lawyers, so that is more and more the rule. Hogan actually would have had a point, if he were interpreting CAFC rulings instead of serving on a jury. Requiring patents to be interpreted narrowly would be good for inventors, so that is out of the question. The patent bar will see to it, higher courts be damned.
- wtallis 14y agoI understand the lengths the Federal Circuit will go to in supporting patents, I just think it would be difficult even for them to require prior art to be tied to a particular architecture but allow a patent to claim the use of any general purpose processor. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if they tried to go that way, but it seems like that would make it even more likely that the Supreme Court would overrule.