[A2k] NYT: patents as swords (was: Re: PATNEWS: Apple's new crappy patent on disabling cellphones)

Erik Josefsson erik.hjalmar.josefsson at gmail.com
Mon Oct 8 15:10:44 PDT 2012

In the light of the NYT article:


where it says:

    "Today, the patent office routinely approves patents that describe
    vague algorithms or business methods, like a software system for
    calculating online prices, without patent examiners demanding
    specifics about how those calculations occur or how the software

I'd like to re-ask if a regexp like this one be considered prior art?


So far only Seth Johnson has answered: "It is a good question for the
Peer-to-Patent folks."

It is important to discuss this, in particular in the US where allegedly
the "Subject Matter ship has sailed" (see Schultz and Urban - A
Defensive Patent License Proposal - Stanford Center for Internet and

Also defensive patents are invalid if there is prior art.

In "Post-Bilski" USA, everybody has to read regexps!


More information about the A2k mailing list