The US government has thrown its support behind tiny i4i in its Office patent dispute with Microsoft. US acting solicitor general Neal Katyal, employed by the Department of Justice, has filed an amicus brief in the case that comes out against Microsoft. Katyal wrote that the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), rather than …
Unable to handle the workload
The USPTO is already having trouble handling the demand, how could they cope with the additional work of conflict resolution?
Many cases go to trial because of patents that one of the parties in the case believes to be invalid or non-applicable to them.
In cases where the USPTO has granted both parties a patent, they have already declared that there is no conflict... so people would still need to go to court.
Maybe Kaytal is just trying to avoid some budgetary issue; its there job, and if you want us to deal with it, you'll need to give us some special budget for it.
Maybe Katyal should go after the USPTO for irresponsible behavior :P
There politicians. either Lawyers or MBA's.
Most of them dont understand the concept of "real work".
Quantity over Quality seems to be the defining feature in the US these days. Why should the USPTO be any different?
"The US Patent and Trademark Office, rather than courts with juries, should resolve patent disputes"
The guys who actually grant all that crap should resolve anything?
Fox, guard that henhouse!
re: Fox, guard that henhouse!
Maybe if they had to sort out some of the mess they make then they'd take a bit more care not to make such a mess in the first place.
Re: Fox, guard that henhouse!
That's unfair. The USPTO were *instructed* to grant all that crap by the idiots in Congress. Slagging off the patent "examiners" just lets the politicians off the hook. You don't want *that*, do you?
"A further five have filed briefs supporting neither side - they include IBM."
I didn't realise things were quite that bad. Litigation is now so important a side of the business that, even when they don't give a toss, they think it's worth getting a load of lawyers to translate "We don't give a toss" into legalese, transcribe that onto parchment and file the results in court?
Why do I get the impression that if the lunatics were to take over the asylum, they'd do it by filing for title in court?
B-b-bu-but-but i4i is a foreign Canadian company and Microsoft is A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N
This is terrible. After all the money Microsoft has spent on donations to U.S. political parties, after all the money MS has spent on lobbyists the Obama government is backing a Canadian company?
Microsoft, Apple and others, have always stolen other peoples IP - it's the AMERICAN WAY. They have done it many times over the last few decades and have just bought their way out of trouble.
We know we treat Canada like the 51st state when it suits us but this is DIFFERENT. Obama is actually giving the case away.
This means we will actually have to recognise other peoples prior works and it will drive our expenses sky high and it might even mean we have to let people go increasing UNEMPLOYMENT.
If Canada gets away with this we might even have to end up saying 'Eh?' after the end of every sentence.
I detect a high ferrous content in JaitcH's post.
It's none too often the U.S. Government tries to assist non-U.S. companies.
I checked my Lexis-Nexis and you are right.
There are extremely few legal matters where the U.S. has worked against it's own in this type of civil matter. The only other area in which they do this with any frequency is the airline pricing conspiracy cases.
Since there is to be new patent legislation I would have thought the government objections could have been covered by new rules.
...as I like seeing MS get a kick in the balls, there is no doubt that the USPTO is no longer fit for purpose. If a jury is not to question the crap that the USPTO approves, then who can? The state? Hardly, they will just follow the money.
Judges? Hardly, they will just follow the money.
USPTO? Hardly, these are idiots who got it wrong in the first place.
Software and business patents should be disallowed, and retrospectively cancelled. It's the only way to encourage development (yes, I did say that) and cut down on the costs involved. They only people who will squeal are the lawyers, but that's OK as they need a kick in the particulars just as much (if not more so) than MS.
Too late for this case
"Katyal wrote that the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), rather than courts with juries, should resolve patent disputes."
Well yes, but for the last twenty years they've been given strict instructions NOT to determine the validity of patents. If you fools in government have at long last seen what a bloody stupid idea that is, then that's lovely and the future's bright, but please do realise that patents granted over this 20-year period of insanity must be continue to be validated in court unless you instruct (and finance) the patent office to review every single one.
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Review Vulture trails claw across Lenovo's touchy N20p Chromebook
- Adobe spies on readers: EVERY DRM page turn leaked to base over SSL
- Analysis The future health of the internet comes down to ONE simple question…