|
||||||||
Professor Dennis Crouch Not that I want to club anyone to death with stories about first-to-file patent reform, but given that Director Kappos has begun beating the patent reform drum, it’s becoming more important that all the facts are known. Up to now, there really hasn’t been any consensus on whether moving to a first-to-file priority system would be a drastic change. Dennis Crouch, over at Patently-O, insists that the Director may be using flawed statistics to demonstrate that change will not be so bad. Interestingly enough, after Professor Crouch and a few others posted comments about it on Director Kappos’s blog, the comments were closed off, ending the discussion on that forum. I guess Mr. Kappos is not really interested in hearing from the patent community — despite portraying that he will listen to feedback. In an effort to come up with some real numbers, Professor Crouch has created a survey that is designed to record the position of patent professionals on this issue. If you have an opinion, one way or the other, you should take a minute, click over, and take the survey. You can’t complain later about how things end up, if you didn’t participate in the discussion. UPDATE: It looks like Kappos’s blog has let through a few more comments, but they are clearly censoring responses. This story was originally posted on The Tactical IP Blog. 
"Jabba’s barge has a pretty chill after party. Yeah, we’re just kickin’ back drinking a few Supernovas and gettin’ a tan." 
Kappos: “Hey Ted, can you show me how these here tubes work?” The U.S. Government Agency that is responsible for validating which technologies are new and useful has discovered a not so new, yet highly useful tool: web logs. In an effort to open a line of communication between the USPTO and the practitioners who deal with the office on a daily basis, newly sworn in Director David Kappos published the inaugural post on his new blog. In it, he takes up the long-raging debate over whether moving to a first-to-file system of prosecution would have a drastic impact on the U.S. patent system. The United States is unique in its position that the first to invent, not the first to file an application, should be the person to receive a patent for her invention. The rest of the civilized world holds the opposite view, giving patent protection to the first party to have her paperwork in. The first-to-file system eliminates the possibility of complicated and expensive arguments over who can prove the date of her invention. The downside is that someone could miss out on a patent for her invention, simply because she took an extra day to draft an application. Congress has slipped this change into several proposed patent reform bills over the last several years, but it has failed, as of yet, to reach bicameral approval. This post was originally published on The Tactical IP Blog.
“Is your cat constantly stomping around all the time, driving you craaaaazy?” “Is your cat clawing at your furnitures?” “Think there’s no answer? You’re so stupid; there is!”
The “originality” requirement of our copyright statute is a very low hurdle. As long as you created it, and as long as it has the smallest amount of creativity, then a work of authorship qualifies for automatic protection. Only the most basic and unoriginal material is considered ineligible for protection. For example, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that alphabetized lists of names and contact information (e.g., phonebooks) are not original enough to be protected by copyright. Also, anything that can only be expressed in a limited number of ways, e.g., contest rules or contract terms, will not be afforded protection. Anything else is fair game.
|
|
|||||||
|
Copyright © 2024 GaneshaFish.com - All Rights Reserved |
||||||||
United States copyright law protects 
