Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents
From: Ben Tilly <btilly@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:03:38 -0800

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:14:03 +0100, Simo Sorce <simo.sorce@xsec.it> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 02:59, Ben Tilly wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:59:44 +0100, Simo Sorce <simo.sorce@xsec.it> wrote:
[...]
> > Yes, this is a somewhat ludicrous interpretation.  But I have as
> > much trouble in interpreting the language so that it covers
> > something like US patent 1,219,881 (the zipper - an invention
> > that literally took decades to develop).
> 
> Yeah there are ridiculous rulings made by not competent judges, the
> matter is new for them and often difficult to understand.

I think you missed my point.

My point is not that bad judges would make bad choices.

I'm saying that were I a judge, I'd have trouble extending
this language even to devices that are held up as classical
examples of the patent system doing what it was meant to.

That suggests to me that it is a law that is going to lend
itself to bad caselaw.

Cheers,
Ben