True Type Fonts.
Jarvis, Robert P.
Jarvisb at timken.com
Fri Dec 10 19:36:09 UTC 1999
So how many patents have you seen overturned, vs. how many have been upheld?
Just curious...
Bob Jarvis
Compuware @ Timken
> -----Original Message-----
> From: agree at carltonfields.com [SMTP:agree at carltonfields.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:44 PM
> To: Alan.Kay at disney.com; squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: RE: True Type Fonts.
>
> Sorry about the commentary.
>
> >It's the patent office that is to blame > for much of
> > this, in that they have been willing to grant patents on just about
> > anything for the last 30 or so years without vetting them, but simply
> > leaving it up to unsophisticated people in civil courts (or > out of
> court)
> > to resolve issues. This has been/is terrible and needs to be >
> combatted.
>
> My experience is that the Federal Circuit (however unsophisticated) does
> an excellent job of addressing these questions. I agree that jury trials
> are nonsensical exercises, and a decent defendant's patent lawyer knows
> when to breeze through the trial court stage to get an appeal ready.
>
> On the other hand, my experience has been that engineers unsophisticated
> in patent law tend to make wildly "wrong calls" on patent questions as
> often, or more often, than legally sophisticated non-technical laypersons.
>
> Yes, the office makes wrong calls, no doubt. And the courts are not
> perfect either. (And I've defended against some very groty patents even
> in my short legal career, I can tell you.) I'm not sure, however, that
> any of the generalizations we hear in the great "patent debates" are
> defensible.
>
> My experience is that there are three kinds of arguments addressing
> software patents:
>
> (1) Patents are Bad;
> (2) Software Patents are Bad; and
> (3) Bad Software Patents are Bad.
>
> No one in their right mind would defend against proposition (3), and few
> can really cut a dent in (1) without losing the vast majority of most
> audiences. The interesting argument is that few can really distinguish
> their arguments for (2) from a (1) or a (3).
>
> Sorry, this is off-topic. But, hey, its Friday and I'm feeling frisky.
> (Just about to file a slam-dunk Summary Judgment Motion against a groty
> patent, too!) :-)
>
> Regards to all in this holiday season,
> A
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|