I found your blogpost very interesting.i am Nick Robinson,a community member at http://www.patents.com Will like to talk (through email) to you,is this the right time to talk about or should we talk during weekends ?

Best-Regards,
Nick Robinson

nickrbson@gmail.com

“Some things just go together, like bread and butter or bacon and eggs or peanut butter and jelly. Everyone understands this because it’s obvious. Now say you make some small change to these pairings. For example, bacon and eggs served on a square plate or almond butter and strawberry jelly or toasted bread with a non-dairy butter substitute. Are these radical new changes? Nope, these are also obvious and chances are the same ideas have already occurred to thousands of people.

“But in the bizarre world of patents, these kinds of ideas have traditionally been looked at as innovative and worthy of the full protection and monopoly powers that a patent entails. Looking through many technology patents today it isn’t hard to find ones that are basically a variation of a well-known idea but on the Web, or a well-known technology but using wireless. While ideas like this have traditionally been able to sail through the patent system and then be used to stifle competition and true innovation, they aren’t any more inventive than bacon and eggs on a square plate.”

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2124994,00.asp

Vonage interim CEO Jeffrey Citron said the Supreme Court’s decision would have “positive implications” for his company’s legal fight. Vonage chief legal officer Sharon O’Leary said, “According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, if you patent an orange picker, and then someone else comes along and puts a glove on it to protect the oranges against bruising, you can’t patent this new invention as ‘novel’ as it is just an obvious improvement of the original invention. The Supreme Court’s decision thus focuses on keeping only what’s truly novel and original protected by patents.”