Read it here:
Against Monopoly
defending the right to innovate
Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.
Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
The written description requirement for patents
The Washington Legal Foundation reports on an (admittedly small) step in the right direction to counter overly broad patent claims.
[Posted at 05/04/2010 02:19 PM by Justin Levine on Patent 
comments(3)]
Comments
"In undertaking this analysis, the Federal Circuit examined the claims of Ariad's patent and noted that the claims cover "the use of ALL substances that achieve the desired result of" inhibiting NF-κB activity." (emphasis added)
This points to one of the troubling aspects of patents, that the patent attempts to cover everything. Patents should be very limited to allow others to "reverse engineer" or develop alternative approaches.
[Comment at 05/05/2010 05:04 AM by Steve R.]
I hope this applies to software patents, too. Patent applicants should only get a patent on one implementation. Not every version, in every language. That would be a patent on an idea, not an invention. Don't these guys have to reduce their patent to practice?
[Comment at 05/13/2010 12:09 PM by Scott Dunn]
Scott:
You have hit the two-edged sword of breadth in patent claims. The broader you attempt to claim, the more likely you will hit a combination that is unworkable. If your claims cover a configuration that is unworkable, or your breadth covers something that was already done, your patent is going to be held invalid. There are many cases of people trying to overreach on their claims, only to lose all their patent rights.
[Comment at 05/13/2010 02:21 PM by Anonymous]
Submit Comment
Most Recent Comments
A Texas Tale of Intellectual Property Litigation (A Watering Hole Patent Trolls) Aunque suena insignificante, los números son alarmantes y nos demuestran que no es tan mínimo como
at 06/29/2022 08:48 AM by Abogado de Accidente de Carro en Huntington Park
at 11/27/2021 05:53 PM by Nobody
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:47 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:47 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:42 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:42 PM by Anonymous