[A2k] the regexp question (was Re: NYT: patents as swords)
erik.hjalmar.josefsson at gmail.com
Wed Jan 16 10:28:57 PST 2013
I still have no luck in clearing up this regexp question. The last
answer I got from a dear friend. He is an IT-lawyer. He said:
/"I can't answer your question since patent law makes my head hurt.
Really, it does. Every time I read a judgement by the TBA, I get a
physical headache so I stopped doing so."/
Btw, here's more of that headache:
*Amazon One-Click Patent still lingering in Europe after 15 years*
I actually think there is a causality linking the origins of my friend's
headache to the laconic statement in the end of the article above: *"EPO
reasoning may reflect deficient governance"*.
Btw, I think you could say the preliminary report we commissioned kind
of showed that there is virtually no statistical trace of EPC Articles
52.2 and 52.3 in the EPO output:
*[hub] Posting of M-CAM report on Questionable Outputs from the
European Patent Office*
If that's actually the case, we'll all have a big headache.
On 10/09/12 00:10, Erik Josefsson wrote:
> 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 Society).
> Also defensive patents are invalid if there is prior art.
> In "Post-Bilski" USA, everybody has to read regexps!
More information about the A2k