06-27-2006, 09:30 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,097
|
|
U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh Standards for Patent "Obviousness"
"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up a case involving one of the thornier questions in patent law: What makes an invention "obvious"--and therefore unworthy of a patent? The case at issue involves patents covering "gas pedal" technology for cars and light trucks. It was accepted on appeal by a company called KSR International, Inc., which had been accused of patent infringement by a firm called Teleflex. Last January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed an earlier court decision last that found patents held by Teleflex were "obvious" and therefore invalid. But Silicon Valley firms, such as Microsoft and Cisco, have also taken an interest in the situation, which would have implications for patents across a wide range of industries."
OK, it's a little off-topic, but may very well affect the outcome of various suits like the Apple vs. Creative spat. Should hierarchical menu systems, like those used by Creative and Apple, be patentable? Or are they just obvious inventions? In case you're wondering, 'obvious' is defined by federal patent law as something that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would consider "obvious." That's pretty open to interperatation if you ask me. Many things seem obvious to me and not to others, even those having 'ordinary skill in the art'. What do you think? Should Apple be able to patent its menu system, even though tree-based interface navigation systems have been around for a very long time (think Windows Explorer)?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Threaded Mode