Microchip looses the plot ?

Joe Butler wrote:
> "Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote in message
> 
>>  Read the whole patent(s), and ponder just how much prior art there
>>is, and how "those skilled in the art" would consider this
>>a complete no-brainer.
>>
>>  The legal teams will do well, and Zilog will get a lot of free
>>publicity, but this so clearly lacks merit that it can only make
>>Microchip's senior management look plain silly/stupid.
>>
> 
> Don't you think it makes the Patent Office look like clueless muppets?

Yes, but that's a no-contest anyway :)

> Shouldn't there be some system in place, such as "3-strikes and you're
> out" - where any patent clerk that achieves 3 successfully-challenged
> patents should be removed from their position?

Remember, they are only clerks...

> Is it possible to sue the Patent Office for damages due to the issuing of
> dumb patents and the negative publicity a 'stupid' patent claim can have?
> If not, it should be.


Patents are merely a license to litigate; some companies collect patents 
because it helps the stockholder/investment side.
It they are never contested, it does not matter how 'stupid' they are.

Patents also need to be actively protected/defended. Microchip also are 
on thin-ice, because they appear to have waited rather a long time to 
activate this one (5,847,450).
Why little Zilog ? Did they annoy Microchip some way ?

I should also add Motorola(Freescale), EM Marin, the Watch industry, and
pretty much the whole smart card industry, as targets Microchip will 
have to sue, to show diligent defense of this patent. [IO <= BUSn]

The big mistake here, is that Microchip are staking a chunk their 
credibility, on a flimsy patent that they _have_ to hope never actually
reaches open court. What was Steve thinking ?

-jg

Dr Justice wrote:

> Sigh.
> Now, if only obvious BS patents could be revoked... Unfortunately such
> stupidity seem be held high and proud instead. The patent system (and the
> driving lawyer culture) is on a sure path to the ridiculous.
> 
> DJ
> --

Exacerbated in the US by allowing software patents too. Let's hope we
continue to avoid that madness in Europe.

Ian

Joe Butler wrote:

> Don't you think it makes the Patent Office look like clueless muppets?
> 
> Shouldn't there be some system in place, such as "3-strikes and you're
> out" - where any patent clerk that achieves 3 successfully-challenged
> patents should be removed from their position?
> 
> Is it possible to sue the Patent Office for damages due to the issuing of
> dumb patents and the negative publicity a 'stupid' patent claim can have?
> If not, it should be.
> 

Let's see. The patent office makes lots of money on issuing patents and
maintaining them, so much so that congress is tapping the USPO for funds
to run other government functions. If the patent office issues a "bad"
patent, such as two patents that clearly duplicate each other (which
has occurred often), not only does it take years before such patents
are ruled invalid, but the USPO suffers no penalties for issuing such
patents. They don't even have to refund fees charged for the invalidated
patent.

Now, WHY should the USPO care about bad patents ?

I realise that - the implication was that this should be _impossed_ on the
Patent Office.

If American courts allow people that are stupic enough to burn themselves
with hot coffee to sue the vendor, then I can's see why an inventor or an
average programmer shouldn't sue the Patent Office for issuing a dumb
patent.

That stupid woman should have been banned from visiting all establishments
serving hot food for her own protection, btw.


"Scott Moore" <samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> wrote in message
news:ddqpcm$t14$1@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM...
> Joe Butler wrote:
>
> > Don't you think it makes the Patent Office look like clueless muppets?
> >
> > Shouldn't there be some system in place, such as "3-strikes and you're
> > out" - where any patent clerk that achieves 3 successfully-challenged
> > patents should be removed from their position?
> >
> > Is it possible to sue the Patent Office for damages due to the issuing
of
> > dumb patents and the negative publicity a 'stupid' patent claim can
have?
> > If not, it should be.
> >
>
> Let's see. The patent office makes lots of money on issuing patents and
> maintaining them, so much so that congress is tapping the USPO for funds
> to run other government functions. If the patent office issues a "bad"
> patent, such as two patents that clearly duplicate each other (which
> has occurred often), not only does it take years before such patents
> are ruled invalid, but the USPO suffers no penalties for issuing such
> patents. They don't even have to refund fees charged for the invalidated
> patent.
>
> Now, WHY should the USPO care about bad patents ?
>

Lets see. "someone should stop them". Clearly "thems" is "lawyers". Is
the USPO going to police themselves? Clearly not. How about congress?
Well, ignoring for a moment that congress set up the current mess as it
is, and that congress is getting money out of it as well, congress is...
lawyers. Perhaps the real answer is that: The USPO fees are small change
compared to lawyer fees made by guiding companies through the getting
of a patent, the fighting over them, etc. And lawyers become congressmen
and women. The system is run by lawyers, for lawyers. The lawyers don't
know beans about technology, but they plan to profit from it (and do).

Joe Butler wrote:
> I realise that - the implication was that this should be _impossed_ on the
> Patent Office.
> 
> If American courts allow people that are stupic enough to burn themselves
> with hot coffee to sue the vendor, then I can's see why an inventor or an
> average programmer shouldn't sue the Patent Office for issuing a dumb
> patent.
> 
> That stupid woman should have been banned from visiting all establishments
> serving hot food for her own protection, btw.
> 
> 
> "Scott Moore" <samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> wrote in message
> news:ddqpcm$t14$1@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM...
> 
>>Joe Butler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don't you think it makes the Patent Office look like clueless muppets?
>>>
>>>Shouldn't there be some system in place, such as "3-strikes and you're
>>>out" - where any patent clerk that achieves 3 successfully-challenged
>>>patents should be removed from their position?
>>>
>>>Is it possible to sue the Patent Office for damages due to the issuing
> 
> of
> 
>>>dumb patents and the negative publicity a 'stupid' patent claim can
> 
> have?
> 
>>>If not, it should be.
>>>
>>
>>Let's see. The patent office makes lots of money on issuing patents and
>>maintaining them, so much so that congress is tapping the USPO for funds
>>to run other government functions. If the patent office issues a "bad"
>>patent, such as two patents that clearly duplicate each other (which
>>has occurred often), not only does it take years before such patents
>>are ruled invalid, but the USPO suffers no penalties for issuing such
>>patents. They don't even have to refund fees charged for the invalidated
>>patent.
>>
>>Now, WHY should the USPO care about bad patents ?
>>
> 
> 
> 

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:31:50 +0100, "Joe Butler"
<ffffh.no.spam@hotmail-spammers-paradise.com> wrote:

><snip>
>If American courts allow people that are stupic enough to burn themselves
>with hot coffee to sue the vendor...
><snip>

If you knew the details of the case, you wouldn't have used this
example to make your point.

Jon

OK, now that I've done a search, I withdraw the statement about the woman.


"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:hc42g1587jbqpipclm1pr6pppv23cn4202@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:31:50 +0100, "Joe Butler"
> <ffffh.no.spam@hotmail-spammers-paradise.com> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
> >If American courts allow people that are stupic enough to burn themselves
> >with hot coffee to sue the vendor...
> ><snip>
>
> If you knew the details of the case, you wouldn't have used this
> example to make your point.
>
> Jon

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:11:18 -0700, Scott Moore
<samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> wrote:

>Joe Butler wrote:
>
>> Don't you think it makes the Patent Office look like clueless muppets?
>> 
>> Shouldn't there be some system in place, such as "3-strikes and you're
>> out" - where any patent clerk that achieves 3 successfully-challenged
>> patents should be removed from their position?
>> 
>> Is it possible to sue the Patent Office for damages due to the issuing of
>> dumb patents and the negative publicity a 'stupid' patent claim can have?
>> If not, it should be.
>> 
>
>Let's see. The patent office makes lots of money on issuing patents and
>maintaining them, so much so that congress is tapping the USPO for funds
>to run other government functions. If the patent office issues a "bad"
>patent, such as two patents that clearly duplicate each other (which
>has occurred often), not only does it take years before such patents
>are ruled invalid, but the USPO suffers no penalties for issuing such
>patents. They don't even have to refund fees charged for the invalidated
>patent.
>
>Now, WHY should the USPO care about bad patents ?


Right on !    The patent system is definately broken.   It's good for
the patent office and the government monetarily, but bad for us
who have to prove our competition wrong to make them go away
and stop hounding us.  (which I've done before)

BTW, does the patent examiner really look for prior art these days ?
I think that ~maybe~ they look at ~some~ patents, but I'm not sure
about prior art and published papers etc...

boB

In article <t4c2g1le4fooprkcfib2ocv6g17f1j6t4k@4ax.com>, boB Gudgel
<boB@> wrote:

> BTW, does the patent examiner really look for prior art these days ?
> I think that ~maybe~ they look at ~some~ patents, but I'm not sure
> about prior art and published papers etc...

A recent article in New Scientist describes how a patent has just been
awarded for a &#4294967295;Circular locomotion assisting device&#4294967295; (or similar title,
I do not have the article to hand) - in other words, a wheel.

...

boB Gudgel wrote:

> 
> BTW, does the patent examiner really look for prior art these days ?
> I think that ~maybe~ they look at ~some~ patents, but I'm not sure
> about prior art and published papers etc...
> 


My experience is that they do. Presumably they have search engines that do
it for them. Usually my patent applications come back with prior art cited
from  a couple of other patents. They are even smart enough to cite patents
from the same general field.  Rarely do the cited patents actually contin
any relevant prior art but that is another matter.

ian