man you americanas law system sux
How so? The courts merely enforce the patent infringement laws as written by Congress. How many years are Australian patents valid for?
man you americanas law system sux
Said laws, and the interpretations/case law, surrounding it are usually what sucks.How so? The courts merely enforce the patent infringement laws as written by Congress. How many years are Australian patents valid for?
I should add that "just medical" is more of a defence than you might think. It says it detects falls which is great -- complications due to falls/broken hips are a leading killer of old people. As such people will pay a lot more than you will pay for your game controller for the device. As such a common business/electronics routine is to tap the high value markets first and then branch out once you are in a better financial position.
Still have not actually looked at the patent(s) in question though.
Said laws, and the interpretations/case law, surrounding it are usually what sucks.
Part of patents is prior art, that being if someone has done something before that works like your patent (limited exception if it was you/your company and within a certain time limit, and certain other defences like the UK Gillette Defence) it does not count. In most of the rest of the world this is serious business and the examiners will look high and low for this sort of thing, in the US they mainly search existing patents within their remit.
Similarly you have obviousness. This is more enforced than prior art but still not good*. The idea is "if something is obvious to a practitioner of the art" you can't get a patent on it.
To trash a US patent you often have to take on every claim within it, elsewhere you can take out the main claims and any based upon it go with it, and you can also take out just the claims that worry your tech.
Case law has seen that the US can patent DNA strands. This one gets tricky as I can see a path for someone to spend ages narrowing down a sequence responsible for something and thus needing some protection but the way it plays out here, to say nothing of the idea of patenting parts of the human body, needs work.
I believe said case law also allowed (or was it vice versa?) for software to be patented. In the rest of the world, save Japan, software is considered maths and thus completely unpatentable. That it exists there is considered pretty egregious.
Less problematic (I do truly find the DNA and software thing to be horribly distasteful) but still an issue for many is the existence of business method patents.
Methods of playing games may receive patents which much of the rest of the world takes issue with.
The supreme court has since more or less put a stop to the Eastern District of Texas thing but it went on for an awfully long time. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-go-texas-its-not-bbq https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/supreme-court-ends-texas-grip-patent-cases
*I am mostly UK patent law and intellectual property but have done some stuff with US companies. To secure a round of funding a patent was asked for. It was a nice idea and could have worked well but I thought nothing about it could be patented, they managed it though.
Suffice it to say though the US system of patents is not one held in high regard anywhere in the world, and causes much consternation when people want to do business inside the US from outside and in many cases within too. If you ever wondered why US cars and mobile phones lagged behind the world for so long then yeah.
Also as you asked fairly standard durations for commonwealth countries and similar to the US (about 20 years depending upon a few factors). Term/duration is a non issue for most though.
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/5-domestic-legal-framework/duration-patent-protection
https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/understanding-patents/types-patents
The innovation patent thing is an interesting one and I am less versed in as far as how it plays out locally. The equivalents elsewhere (it comes under the term utility model) means the concept is fairly popular worldwide http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/utility_models/where.htm
I strongly disagree with the first part, but partially with the second part.Patents in general are awful and anti-free market.
Nintendo MAY have used their tech but Nintendo found a creative way to use it.
That's not the point. The point is that it is an unfair patent claim.It's like you people think 10mil will even put a dent in Nintendos bank account.
The judge clearly disagreed.That's not the point. The point is that it is an unfair patent claim.