Quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
To be safe, the art should be before 1990.
The 1990 post is interesting from the berkley guy, it might be early enough too.. but the problem is that in my understanding this does not HAVE to invalidate their patent or some of their claims, since its just someone inventing it, having the idea, just like they had the idea... They were just sooner to patent it.
|
Using that logic, you could just go find someone using some method for 50 years, then go patent it and sue them for using it. It would make sense that the patent would not be valid because someone, or many people, were already doing what you claim you invented. The word invent and copy don't have the same meaning.
Just because you were the first to patent it shouldn't mean anything once it goes to court. I don't know how it really works in court today, but allowing someone to patent a known technology and then try to prevent others from using it is the exact opposite of what the patent system was intended to do.
If you didn't invent something, you should have no right to stop others from using it. In this case, it's even worse, because they didn't even enforce the bogus patent for about 10 years probably because even the people who filed it didn't think it covered what it's now being claimed to cover.
The whole Acacia situation should be made into an example for the need for patent reform.