<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bilski Tea Leaves: Remembering the Lab Corp. Non-decision</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/18/bilski-tea-leaves-remembering-the-lab-corp-non-decision/id=8479/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/18/bilski-tea-leaves-remembering-the-lab-corp-non-decision/id=8479/</link>
	<description>Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications &#38; Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:58:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Debunking the Software Patent "Pen and Paper Myth" &#124; IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/18/bilski-tea-leaves-remembering-the-lab-corp-non-decision/id=8479/#comment-12269</link>
		<dc:creator>Debunking the Software Patent "Pen and Paper Myth" &#124; IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:23:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8479#comment-12269</guid>
		<description>[...] Supreme Court will overrule the Bilski decision, of that I have no doubt.  They will dial it way back because the Federal Circuit [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Supreme Court will overrule the Bilski decision, of that I have no doubt.  They will dial it way back because the Federal Circuit [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Should Business Methods be Patentable?</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/18/bilski-tea-leaves-remembering-the-lab-corp-non-decision/id=8479/#comment-10679</link>
		<dc:creator>Should Business Methods be Patentable?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:22:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8479#comment-10679</guid>
		<description>[...] doing some reading into the Supreme Court case of Bilski v Kappos, I came across an interesting piece of analysis by IP lawyer Gene Quinn. Quinn brings up an interesting case involving patent law, somewhat related [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] doing some reading into the Supreme Court case of Bilski v Kappos, I came across an interesting piece of analysis by IP lawyer Gene Quinn. Quinn brings up an interesting case involving patent law, somewhat related [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gene Quinn</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/18/bilski-tea-leaves-remembering-the-lab-corp-non-decision/id=8479/#comment-10641</link>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:42:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8479#comment-10641</guid>
		<description>POP-

Well said.  

-Gene</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>POP-</p>
<p>Well said.  </p>
<p>-Gene</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pop</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/18/bilski-tea-leaves-remembering-the-lab-corp-non-decision/id=8479/#comment-10639</link>
		<dc:creator>pop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8479#comment-10639</guid>
		<description>I actually like the machine or transformation test so my fingers are crossed for the Bilski decision to be upheld. Some people want software patents thrown out all together, a very unlikely scenario, which I wouldn&#039;t be unhappy with, but is not my ideal solution. To me that feels like killing a fly with a sledge hammer. 

Nobody is ever going to be happy with any test that is put in place and patent lawyers will always find new ways to write around those tests. I just want to see abuse of all kinds stop. People greedily file patents for things just because they know they will probably get it and it means they can use it to sue or avoid being sued, and not because they are trying to protect some great invention of theirs. Patent examiners do not have the time, resources, or expertise to correctly identify bad software patents. Who can blame them with so many being filed each day. 

Everybody is being hurt and the whole thing has degenerated into a big snowball fight. Grab the nearest snow, form it into a patent and start tossing. Small businesses get crushed and run out of business before they ever get a chance to succeed and anything new or novel they may have brought to the table gets lost over protecting the status quo, which is why things have been stagnant for so long. We have to wait for the serious patent portfolio players to innovate because they can stop anybody else who tries to compete with them. Even if a small business owner has a patent or two it may not help him against his attack if they aren&#039;t threatened by it. Big business isn&#039;t safe either because small business and parasite companies are always trying to sue them for their money, taking away money from real R&amp;D and wasting a lot of time in court. 

A lot of time, resources, and opportunities are being squandered by people who are &#039;protecting&#039; themselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually like the machine or transformation test so my fingers are crossed for the Bilski decision to be upheld. Some people want software patents thrown out all together, a very unlikely scenario, which I wouldn&#8217;t be unhappy with, but is not my ideal solution. To me that feels like killing a fly with a sledge hammer. </p>
<p>Nobody is ever going to be happy with any test that is put in place and patent lawyers will always find new ways to write around those tests. I just want to see abuse of all kinds stop. People greedily file patents for things just because they know they will probably get it and it means they can use it to sue or avoid being sued, and not because they are trying to protect some great invention of theirs. Patent examiners do not have the time, resources, or expertise to correctly identify bad software patents. Who can blame them with so many being filed each day. </p>
<p>Everybody is being hurt and the whole thing has degenerated into a big snowball fight. Grab the nearest snow, form it into a patent and start tossing. Small businesses get crushed and run out of business before they ever get a chance to succeed and anything new or novel they may have brought to the table gets lost over protecting the status quo, which is why things have been stagnant for so long. We have to wait for the serious patent portfolio players to innovate because they can stop anybody else who tries to compete with them. Even if a small business owner has a patent or two it may not help him against his attack if they aren&#8217;t threatened by it. Big business isn&#8217;t safe either because small business and parasite companies are always trying to sue them for their money, taking away money from real R&amp;D and wasting a lot of time in court. </p>
<p>A lot of time, resources, and opportunities are being squandered by people who are &#8216;protecting&#8217; themselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uberVU - social comments</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/18/bilski-tea-leaves-remembering-the-lab-corp-non-decision/id=8479/#comment-10619</link>
		<dc:creator>uberVU - social comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:13:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8479#comment-10619</guid>
		<description>
&lt;strong&gt;Social comments and analytics for this post...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post was mentioned on Twitter by InventorsLab: Bilski Tea Leaves: Remembering the Lab Corp. Non-decision http://bit.ly/79tbK4...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by InventorsLab: Bilski Tea Leaves: Remembering the Lab Corp. Non-decision <a href="http://bit.ly/79tbK4.." rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/79tbK4..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EG</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/18/bilski-tea-leaves-remembering-the-lab-corp-non-decision/id=8479/#comment-10618</link>
		<dc:creator>EG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:52:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8479#comment-10618</guid>
		<description>Gene,

Sorry, add &quot;me&quot; after &quot;count.&quot;  Too early in the morning yet for me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gene,</p>
<p>Sorry, add &#8220;me&#8221; after &#8220;count.&#8221;  Too early in the morning yet for me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EG</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/18/bilski-tea-leaves-remembering-the-lab-corp-non-decision/id=8479/#comment-10617</link>
		<dc:creator>EG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:50:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8479#comment-10617</guid>
		<description>&quot;In truth, the dissent of Justice Breyer seems short-sighted.&quot;

Gene,

That&#039;s an understatement.  Yes, Justice Breyer, the one who denigrated our area of law with comments about &quot;racoon inventions&quot; during oral argument in KSR International.  You can also count amongst those who view Gottschalk as a travesty, written by the most anti-patent Justice of all time, William O. Douglas.  Parker v. Flook after it was even worse &quot;gobbledygook&quot; to use the phrase of another Justice who also frequently denigrates patnt law.

But with Justice Sotomayor, there may be hope for us.  We&#039;ll just have to wait and see how Bilski turns out (and hope we don&#039;t cringe).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;In truth, the dissent of Justice Breyer seems short-sighted.&#8221;</p>
<p>Gene,</p>
<p>That&#8217;s an understatement.  Yes, Justice Breyer, the one who denigrated our area of law with comments about &#8220;racoon inventions&#8221; during oral argument in KSR International.  You can also count amongst those who view Gottschalk as a travesty, written by the most anti-patent Justice of all time, William O. Douglas.  Parker v. Flook after it was even worse &#8220;gobbledygook&#8221; to use the phrase of another Justice who also frequently denigrates patnt law.</p>
<p>But with Justice Sotomayor, there may be hope for us.  We&#8217;ll just have to wait and see how Bilski turns out (and hope we don&#8217;t cringe).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention Bilski Tea Leaves: Remembering the Lab Corp. Non-decision &#124; IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/18/bilski-tea-leaves-remembering-the-lab-corp-non-decision/id=8479/#comment-10613</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Bilski Tea Leaves: Remembering the Lab Corp. Non-decision &#124; IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:18:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8479#comment-10613</guid>
		<description>
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Inventor Education, Bradley Levinson. Bradley Levinson said: Bilski Tea Leaves: Remembering the Lab Corp. Non-decision: IPWatchdog.com As is the case with many inventions that... http://bit.ly/7neyLc [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Inventor Education, Bradley Levinson. Bradley Levinson said: Bilski Tea Leaves: Remembering the Lab Corp. Non-decision: IPWatchdog.com As is the case with many inventions that&#8230; <a href="http://bit.ly/7neyLc" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/7neyLc</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

