Only somebody who was high would write this this way:
35 USC 102(d) PATENTS AND PUBLISHED APPLICATIONS EFFECTIVE AS PRIOR ART.
--For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application --
(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent; or
(2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b), or to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) based upon 1 or more prior filed applications for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.
Wow.
OK, let's unpack this a little bit.
This section says a patent or application is prior art (1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, when X; or (2) when Y. That's just crazy. You have to get all the way to then end of section (d)(2) to figure out if (d)(1) applies. There's no need to structure it this way: They could just as easily say A patent or application is prior art (1) when Y; or (2) if Y does not apply, when X. Although it's remotely possible that the people who were drafting this were equipped with computers without a backspace or delete key, I think it's much more likely that they were high. They started writing, and the words poured forth. I'm guessing it was meth - hypergraphia is a known side-effect of excessive consumption of uppers.
They could have said it this way:
For purposes of this statute, the effective filing date of a patent or application is the earliest of (1) the actual filing date of the patent or application; or (2) the earliest filing date of a prior application to which the patent or application is entitled to claim priority.
We cut out the listing of the sections under which you can claim priority, which is exhaustive and so is unnecessary. We also cut out the reference to an "application that describes the subject matter," which is subsumed within the concept of entitlement to claim priority, and so is likewise superfluous.
Meet Hope Shimabuku, USPTO Reg. No. 57,072, your new Director of the Dallas office of the USPTO. Ms. Shimabuku is a mechanical engineer who comes the USPTO from Xerox; her prior employment includes stints at RIM, Dell, and P&G, and had a couple of law firm gigs. She's a graduate of UT (Austin) and SMU law school (don't mess with Texas). Details at Dallas News.
Interesting choice to pick somebody from outside the USPTO with clear regional ties.
"Copyright Law Was Not Created To Protect People From Fatwas." Link here.
Interesting and cogent primer on the DMCA.
Link here.
Issues:
- statistics are based on increased suits by "Non-Practicing Entities" without distinguishing between the different flavors (like, for example, universities as opposed to "patent monetization entities").
- increased suits are noted, without any analysis of where this is coming from. Maybe increased economic activity leads to more infringement, which provokes more suits? No way to tell from these data.
- And anyway, why are patent suits inherently evil? What are patentholders supposed to do, ask nicely? I mean, of course they are, but when the infringer tells them to pound sand, what then?
Should probably have added quotes, like this:
The "Patent Troll" "Problem" is Getting "Worse."
In my dream, the USPTO had a rule that penalized applicants by cutting their PTA if their deadline fell on a weekend, but they didn't respond until the following business day. Which is, of course, totally Kosher under the rules.
So in my dream, the rule penalizing applicants was overruled by the Courts. And then, in my dream, it took FOUR YEARS for the USPTO to change the way its computers calculated PTA to comply with the decision.
FOUR YEARS.
And then you know what happend? The USPTO gave everybody four extra years of patent term, because of the delay in fixing the problem.
In my dreams.
1. A US District Court judge in New York has dismissed the three-year-old copyright infringement case against the Beastie Boys (see opinion here). Plaintiff TufAmerica had accused the Beasties of sampling TroubleFunk's "Say What" and "Lets Get Small" without permission. According to the court, TufAmerica lacked standing because they didn't have an exclusive license from all three members of TroubleFunk.
2. IKEA is being sued (story here) for alleged copyright infringement by Emeco. According to plaintiffs, IKEA copied an Emeco chair without permission. The allegedly infringing chair is on the right, and the copyrighted chair is on the left. So this one should be settling shortly.
3. The US District Court for the Northern District of California has heard arguments in a suit challenging Warner/Chappell's copyright on the song "Happy Birthday to You," which is not scheduled to expire until 2030.
Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA has spoken out about the recent "Blurred Lines" copyright infringement verdict.
He's got an interesting solution for solving the problem of musicians sampling others' works: a a 50% statutory cap on royalty payments.
I have a better idea: how about negotiating a license before you use somebody else's recording in your work, instead of just ripping them off and waiting to get sued?
Just a thought.
