By the way, you claim that Edison patented "his lightbulb." You assume he only had an appatatus claim. Just out of curiosity, would you change your opinion if one of the claims of his patent said "a method of producing light..." Choose your answer carefully.

I'm actually not being facetious. So did Edison discover that running a current through a filament when encased in glass makes it glow or did he invent it? Seriously.

I disagree that it's disconnected from reality and common sense. It's the same invention, we're just looking at it from different angles. You claim to want to protect inventions, but are drawing a very narrow definition of what is an invention (apparatus) and what is not (process).

And I'm sorry it's so confusing for you. Legally, there is no difference.

No, same invention, different way of casting it. I've cast it as a method, you've cast it as an apparatus. It's the same invention though.

And "copying" has nothing to do with patent infringement. If someone came up with the light bulb independently, they'd still infringe.

By that argument, anything ever made was "discovered." I discovered that when I ran electricity through a filament, it lights up. And I discovered that I can encase it in glass.

Agree to disagree.

So any new process that is invented - like something equivalent to the invention of the process to make steel - cannot be patented? Yeah, that seems like a great idea.

Thank you, thank you, 1000 times thank you.

Right on all accounts.

IAAL.

Straight up WRONG. For every non-techie litigator that a patent troll has, there is a technical patent attorney with an engineering degree that is supporting the litigator.

I say this having represented defendants in about a dozen patent troll cases.

Sincerely,
A patent attorney with a comp. sci. degree

I guess it's not cynical for me to recognize everyone on slashdot is a torch-and-pitchfork wielding anti-corporation zealot either, huh? I mean, you guys have been proving me right for about a decade now.

why do I even bother to come here?

Try being a patent attorney and coming to slashdot every now and then. ;-P

An ITC finding of invalidity does not "bust a patent," it merely prevents relief through the ITC. An Article III court, e.g., a federal district court, does not have to give any weight to the ITC's validity finding, meaning the patent is still valid for "normal" law suit purposes.

Showed you THE RESULT, not the method. The patent claims the method. And please give me specific examples of this occurring "digitally" and "online" since the mid-90s, given that the web didn't really take off till 96 or 97.

wtf are you talking about? These are just law firms that apply for patents, you know, maybe for completely legitimate companies. There is nothing in the article or the summary that says these lawyers help patent trolls. You DO realize just because it involves patents doesn't automatically make it about patent trolls.

FFS man, torch and pitchfork much?

Anyone that wishes physical harm on someone because they dislike their profession is not "right minded."

And lest you think I can't take a joke, I can, it's just not funny.