Category Archives: patents

Celebrity patents

January 4, 2007 – 6:52 pm

BoingBoing point at a website detailing famous patentees. Impressive was the Hedy Lamar one which forms the basis of the modern cellphone & Zeppo (unknown younger brother of the three) Marx’s cardiac pulse monitor.
unimpressive?: Jamie Lee-Curtis’ knappy; pah, is it suitable for hermaphrodite babies?
Geeklawyer would be curious to see a list of rejected celeb patents.

By Geeklawyer | Tagged , , | Comments (1)

eeeek! drafting horrors

January 1, 2007 – 4:32 pm

Spotted belatedly at Naked Law is this patent drafting horror:
9. The method of providing user interface displays in an image forming apparatus which is really a bogus claim included amongst real claims, and which should be removed before filing; wherein the claim is included to […]

By Geeklawyer | Also posted in legal profession | Tagged , , , , | Comments (1)

Give us Europe wide patents please.

November 28, 2006 – 3:55 pm

Marks & Clerks the patent agents commissioned research that indicated that firms wanted better rather than quicker examination. Dead right - a business no brainer. Geeklawyer also thinks that a Europe-wide patent would be incredibly useful: no-one thinks in national terms and provided the cost is proportional & there are opportunities to limit cost by […]

By Geeklawyer | Tagged , | Comments (0)

“patent your idea before someone else does!” - uh huh

November 15, 2006 – 3:16 pm

The above line, or some similar variant designed to cause a panicked rush, is occasionally seen on TV advert’s late at night. The scheme is a legal scam on the numerous home inventors; it’s designed to get them to pay fees for useless work: along pops Johnny Filing-Clerk, desperate to get away from his current […]

By Geeklawyer | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments (0)

Macrossan Software patent application to be heard by the Lords?

November 11, 2006 – 2:58 pm

Geeklawyer is probably unique in being a barrister who occasionally drafts patents (but he would be very interested to hear assertions to the contrary). He is aware of one US lawyer, now a UK solicitor, who also does so but only because she initially qualified as a US patent attorney. Geeklawyer will confess that he […]

By Geeklawyer | Also posted in legal profession | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (4)

Weird patents

October 8, 2006 – 6:26 pm

Another thing Geeklawyer is a bit of a fan of is Japan. never been there, sadly. Done various Japanese martial arts to a moderate level. Even had a fair stab at learning Japanese before finely honed laziness won out, at least temporarily.
So, while others mock weird Japanese gadgets Geeklawyer finds them cute in all their […]

By Geeklawyer | Also posted in humour | Tagged , | Comments (2)

Macrossan software patent case to get to the Court of Appeal

June 5, 2006 – 1:26 pm

Simon Hart of ukcorporator alerts Geeklawyer to their success in persuading the Court of Appeal to hear an appeal in relation to the applications dismissal by the High Court. Justice Jacob said
“The issue of exclusions is of public interest, sufficiently uncertain and thus worthy of consideration by the court,”
Disconcertingly for anti software patent activists […]

By Geeklawyer | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments (1)

Geeklawyer sides with Microsoft ?!

April 26, 2006 – 10:20 pm

No he’s not talking about the interminable struggle between Bill and the Commission; where he hopes Bill will get an atomic wedgie from the Masters of Bureaucracy.
No, what Geeklawyer is banging on about is

By Geeklawyer | Also posted in litigation | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0)

Crushed blackberries?

February 24, 2006 – 12:00 pm

The adverse policy implications of patents are often rather hard to communicate to the public. The appalling state of the American Patent Office is generally of interest to no-one but digital rights activists patentees and their lawyers. The Blackberry debacle brings this into profound relief.

By Geeklawyer | Tagged , , , | Comments (2)

IP Judge asks awkward policy question

January 16, 2006 – 9:28 pm

Geeklawyer doesn’t always agree with Court of Appeal judge Sir Robin Jacob’s decisions (he probably doesn’t fret too much about that, one suspects) but at a seminar for the Society for Computers and Law he spoke unadulterated good sense:
“Do we need patents for computer programs? Where is the evidence for it?”

By Geeklawyer | Also posted in Intellectual Property | Comments (1)