Patent used in a sentence

Patent in a sentence as a noun

It did not weigh in against patent trolls.

"So if Google had acquired the rights to these patents, that would have been OK.

You know what's worse than patent trolls gaming the system?

Because most, if not all, software patents are bogus.

This is referred to as "swearing behind" the Hillis patent's filing date [3].

Nothing at all. He's not saying they are going to do something about the patent problem.

Is Soverain a patent troll that deserved this outcome?

As Fred Wilson explains, web company patents have been thought of as defensive.

I like how all the comments so far are defending the fact that the patent isn't quite as broad as the title suggests.

"Google supporters claim that Google only wants to use patents defensively.

There is nothing to admire, and patent trolls are merely smug abusers of our society.

"Yes they are arguing against the patent system, at least for software, as do many in the industry.

It had simply acquired the original company that had come up with the patent back in the day.

I told the OM guy who called me that I thought the patent was invalid, and he said "ok" and then asked if we were hiring.

If this triggers a wave of patent lawsuit ********, then everybody will end up poorer.

"But there's no denying that this is by several times the largest amount ever paid for a patent portfolio.

"Then the magical aspect of patent law called "prior art" would come into play and it wouldn't be patentable.

Patent in a sentence as a verb

Sure, they are patenting taking a picture against a white background when perpendicular against a... Who gives a ****.

The only thing novel or unique is the fact is that some genius realized that with enough legal terms, you could patent a photo shoot.

But what exactly does Google need to defend against, if not actual patents Android actually violates?

In the patent community, the Soverain patent was seen as rock solid and one whose shopping cart idea was deemed far from obvious.

"These are not patents on innovation, theyre patents on simple ideas and features that you didnt even think of first but you were the first to patent.

Let us only hope that systemic fixes can help correct the problem so that this is not the only way available for dealing with such patents.

The first is that it explicitly prohibits patent lawsuits against people for actually using the GPL-licensed software you ship.

I'd register a patent for the plot device of having the bad guy be the main character's best friend, with additional clauses for being his boss, advisor, or partner.

But this distinction does underscore how difficult it becomes to analyze patent issues simply by placing labels on the parties.

This was the same court, by the way, that had adopted the State Street test that led to a wild proliferation of business-method patents and that was struck down in Bilski.

America is a capitalist society and therefore you are fighting that as a concept - not the patent industry.

"[0]> "Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products because it was all the same.

The jury is basically told that the patent is presumed valid unless they can clearly find compelling evidence to invalidate.

In fact, the practical effect of this case on patents will be far greater than that of, say, Bilski, which dealt with the question of what constitutes patentable subject matter.

The patent bar is in an uproar that issued patents might not be deemed presumptively valid when challenged but might be much more vulnerable to challenge going forward, and so too are the trolls.

"This argument betrays either a very weak understanding of how defensive patents work or a deep dishonesty of argumentation.

"They’re effectively arguing against the idea of the patent system itself, simply because Android violates a bunch of patents held by Google’s competitors.

Patent in a sentence as an adjective

Hence the reason the law should be reformed to attach patentable rights to have a enforceable requirement to actually 'use' the patent - thus destroying the majority of trolls.

On the technical issue, patents laws are governed by statutes enacted by Congress but no existing statute requires that a clear-and-convincing standard be applied to this issue.

If you had a startup and a patentable innovation - it would be ridiculous to assume that you would be willing to forgo millions/billions in revenue for some abstract concept of "a greater good".

Our leaders are dazzled by arguments of complexity when the heart of the problem is genuinely, truly simple:Introduce and pass a bill to eliminate software patents, retroactively, and do it now.

Microsoft argues that the Federal Circuit has skewed patent litigation by arbitrarily making it more difficult to invalidate patents than Congress had intended.

Based on a single implementation, Oracle would bypass this entire patent scheme and claim ownership over any and all ways to carry out methods for 95 years without any vetting by the Copyright Office of the type required for patents.

What they don't recognize is when drug makers trivially re-formulate their drug upon patent expiration in such a way that the old medicine cannot be made generically without also infringing on the new patent.

It's the kind of language a lawyer would use to qualify a patent clause.- We do not provide direct access to our servers.- We do not provide direct access nor is there a backdoor.- O, but we do still pipe all of your data to external NSA servers.

The Federal Circuit's holding by a 3-judge panel had been remarkable and had shocked patent lawyers generally in that the parties before the court had not even raised the issue on appeal as a ground for invalidating the jury's verdict below.

"It’s OK for Google to undermine Microsoft’s for-pay OS licensing business by giving Android away for free, but it’s not OK for Microsoft to undermine Google’s attempts to give away for free an OS that violates patents belonging to Microsoft?

The problem with modern software patents is that too many are too easily granted over trivial "innovations" and this has given vast incentives to those who would package them into shakedown licensing ventures and thereby gum things up for true innovators.

The reason it is not a particularly exciting case from a headline standpoint is that it deals with what appears to be a specialist technical issue of patent law, that is, what is the proper "standard of proof" to be applied when a patent is challenged as being invalid?

"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.

This John Carmack quote is relevant and shares your sentiments:"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.

According to your article you sit back and say "oh thats totally ok because thats innovation and I'm happy that everyone has copied me and destroyed my advantage".The problems with the patent industry are patents abused by companies who have absolutely no interest in developing them but rather trolling them to simply extract money from other companies.