Seeking Alpha

Patent Plays

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Patent Plays' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Appellate Majority Makes Critical Error In Supporting Obviousness; Vringo Candidate For Supreme Court Test [View article]
    Only SCOTUS can eliminate the test they instituted. The argument must be compelling enough for them to accept.

    That is left up to VRingo Attorneys who may be getting help from IBM.
    Aug 19 01:18 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Next Steps After A Disappointing Decision Versus Google [View article]
    @Dean1111

    SCOTUS created this conflict with their "Technological Arts Patent Test". Circuit Judges Mayer & Wallach just in "delayed effect" sent it back to them.

    They are not the Architects of this Chaos, they are just forcing the High Court to address a problem, without an escape valve similar to the one Alice v. CLS had.

    Alice was cast aside for just being a 'bad" patent. Vringo is being cast aside by instructions passed down from the high Court to enforce by. Those instruction were set, AFTER Alice was ruled upon. Alice had no opportunity.

    The opportunity now is for Vringo to explain why SCOTUS rules currently in place translate into unequal applications of the law. Either all abstract Software patents are eliminated or they are allowed to stand.

    You cannot have both.
    Aug 18 06:38 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Opinion That Brought Down Vringo [View article]

    @Zeleration

    Excellent post
    Aug 18 06:17 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo bounces as insiders buy following Google ruling [View news story]
    The process for En Banc selection is conducted by Vote. Chief Justice Sharon Prost will circulate the request. While Justice Chens written decision will be beneficial in the selection group's decision making (usually 10 of the 17 are randomly selected- with the original 3 remaining) it will be only be that. There's no "pushing hard" agenda in this forum. Further it requires a simple majority to accept.

    The appeal itself must bring up questions of uniformity in the decision making process in order to inspire a majority. My thoughts suggest they will spend far more time on SCOTUS Technological Arts Patent Test violating the Equal Protections clause of the 14th Amendment at the Federal Level.

    In short, eliminate all Software Patents in force today or grandfather them in. The USPTO has already begun the process of rejecting new software patents. SCOTUS has no real option but to resolve this matter.
    Aug 18 03:14 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Appellate Majority Makes Critical Error In Supporting Obviousness; Vringo Candidate For Supreme Court Test [View article]
    @Sturgess2003

    Vringo wisely pushed harder into European Software Patents, that enjoy a greater system of protection than the USA.

    Vringo remains an excellent investment for this reason alone.
    Aug 18 02:54 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Appellate Majority Makes Critical Error In Supporting Obviousness; Vringo Candidate For Supreme Court Test [View article]
    Yes it most definitely would.
    Aug 18 12:14 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Appellate Majority Makes Critical Error In Supporting Obviousness; Vringo Candidate For Supreme Court Test [View article]
    @Techinvestor80

    We are dealing with two distinct opinions on reversal, not just one. "De Novo" based decisions are allowed, however the Court must maintain a sense of uniformity in its decisions, and Justice Wallach & Mayer failed in that regard over how they treated the written testimony of the expert.

    Let me put it in a more straight forward manner. "In I/P Engine vs. Aol the Appellate found that an expert is not required to explain why a combination of patents works better or what benefits are derived, rather he just needs to reference that two patents exist."

    In other words a Jury no longer needs to ask the question "why?".

    As for the 2nd reason, Vringo has standing, as it has been injured by SCOTUS direct order- The Patent Test, which is not evenly applied to ALL US Software Patents, as they remain in force.

    Lets take a walk with the 14th Amendment:)
    Aug 18 12:08 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Opinion That Brought Down Vringo [View article]
    As I recounted in my article, Justice Mayer and Wallach drew upon an inconclusive defense expert report as the basis for their Obviousness decision. The report failed to disclose any information why the introduction of the search query would create a better mouse trap. The jury made that connection but Mayer and Wallach eliminated and scolded them for in essence the use of fundamental logic.
    Aug 18 11:02 AM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Appellate Majority Makes Critical Error In Supporting Obviousness; Vringo Candidate For Supreme Court Test [View article]
    @Bad Banker

    Your latter comment was my 1st impression of the Appellate Majorities action. This was the "loud" statement. However today the USPTO is rejecting NEW Software Patents in wholesale lots. This is the silent ramification of Alice v CLS no one is hearing about.

    A colleague recently forwarded a software rejection letter to me, which was the most ambiguous rejection letter I've had the pleasure of reading.

    The USPTO has no rationale in its rejections of Software Patent applications. I wanted to post this letter on SA but could not get a release from the client. This cannot continue.
    Aug 18 09:12 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Appellate Majority Makes Critical Error In Supporting Obviousness; Vringo Candidate For Supreme Court Test [View article]
    @LaFiere

    Piracy of Computer Software related patents in general, will no longer be a problem for China or Russia under this Court. All protections will be lost.
    Aug 18 08:38 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Rated As Rotten: The Company Shows Why You Don't Speculate On "Patent Trolls" [View article]
    The USPTO has already begun to issue rejections based on software patent status.

    You cannot have 500,000 plus in active software patents and then subsequently offer no EQUAL PROTECTION (14th Amendment) to the Patents that are disqualified in litigation, for just being the same status-software patents.

    I suspect that grandfathering status will be coming, or a massive change.
    Aug 17 11:52 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Rated As Rotten: The Company Shows Why You Don't Speculate On "Patent Trolls" [View article]
    Let me expound,

    Microsoft Windows, Oracle, SAP, and every other patented software application you can think of, replicated by our foreign competitors. Now freely sold to me, you, anybody at your local Best Buy. American IP forbidden to be sold in the same foreign countries, without compensation to their patent holders, who enjoy the patent protections we fail to provide here.

    Call it your worst case scenario, the Courts need to correct this quickly.
    Aug 17 03:09 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Rated As Rotten: The Company Shows Why You Don't Speculate On "Patent Trolls" [View article]
    I believe the Appellate wants to force this action on SCOTUS. They want clarification, and have chosen Vringo to get it. The alternative is the bulk systematic destruction of Software patents at all levels of the federal court.
    Aug 17 02:56 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Rated As Rotten: The Company Shows Why You Don't Speculate On "Patent Trolls" [View article]
    In both instances the Appellate failed to base the decision on the record. The distinguishing factor between Sovereian and Vringo is the 2nd reason for reversal. SCOTUS's patent test is fundamentally subjective and prejudices the existence of software patents. This was the 300 pound gorilla Supreme Court Justice Thomas chose to ignore. However now its been used by Justices Wallach and Mayer, and Vringo will use this to their benefit.

    This is what will drive En Banc and a possible Supreme Court review.
    Aug 17 02:30 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Rated As Rotten: The Company Shows Why You Don't Speculate On "Patent Trolls" [View article]
    Judge Wallach and Mayer, went beyond accepted jurisprudence in their decision to declare Vringo's patents obvious. This is quite literally "unbelievable" from a legal perspective.

    Judge Wallach and Mayer is assessing that "Experts Skilled in the Art" have no duty or obligation to explain why inventions work better. Under their interpretation a simple affirmation that a component exists is enough proof to overturn for Obviousness.

    We have the who, the what, the where- but we don't need to know why?

    This is the question that should engage the Appellate.
    Aug 17 02:05 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
847 Comments
1,589 Likes