Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Jul 2012 23:07 UTC
Legal Since I want to get this out of my system: here's a set of proposals to fix (okay, replace) the current failing patent system. No lengthy diatribe or introduction, just a raw list.
Thread beginning with comment 525563
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Misunderstanding
by pjafrombbay on Fri 6th Jul 2012 05:24 UTC in reply to "Misunderstanding"
pjafrombbay
Member since:
2005-07-31

I take issue with you on this point. As a former Patent Examiner I can tell you the purpose of a grant of a patent is to protect the intellectual property of the inventor. It is to stop others stealing/modifying original inventions so as to deprive the original inventor of his rights.

Of course, this does not mean I believe there is nothing wrong with the existing system.

Regards,
Peter

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Misunderstanding
by JAlexoid on Fri 6th Jul 2012 12:59 in reply to "RE: Misunderstanding"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

That is where I disagree and I disagree based on the history of patents. It is very sad that, you , as a patent examiner don't seem to know why patents were created.

The purpose of the patent is disclosure of technique or technology under the promise that only the inventor will get to use it for a limited time. When you say it's to protect IP of the inventor, you are missing the point of the whole idea of patents and their historical significance.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Misunderstanding
by tomcat on Sat 7th Jul 2012 15:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Misunderstanding"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

That is where I disagree and I disagree based on the history of patents. It is very sad that, you , as a patent examiner don't seem to know why patents were created.

The purpose of the patent is disclosure of technique or technology under the promise that only the inventor will get to use it for a limited time. When you say it's to protect IP of the inventor, you are missing the point of the whole idea of patents and their historical significance.


Sorry, but you left out a few details. Disclosure, certainly, but not permission to use the invention before a reasonable period of time and/or unless somebody licenses the patent from the holder. We can argue about what a reasonable time period is, but those are the particulars.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Misunderstanding
by pjafrombbay on Mon 9th Jul 2012 07:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Misunderstanding"
pjafrombbay Member since:
2005-07-31

... It is very sad that, you , as a patent examiner don't seem to know why patents were created...


I bow to your superior knowledge. After all its me who is the qualified Patent Examiner - what would I know?

Regards,
Peter

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Misunderstanding
by zima on Tue 10th Jul 2012 18:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Misunderstanding"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The purpose of the patent is disclosure of technique or technology under the promise that only the inventor will get to use it for a limited time. When you say it's to protect IP of the inventor, you are missing the point of the whole idea of patents and their historical significance.

Essentially to dismantle the guilds of old times, and their secretive ways? (and the possible stagnation they brought; so destroying it was overall very much a good thing)

There does seem to be curious overlap WRT to decline of old-style guilds, introduction of patent laws, and later industrial revolution.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Misunderstanding
by viton on Fri 6th Jul 2012 18:08 in reply to "RE: Misunderstanding"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

As a former Patent Examiner I can tell you the purpose of a grant of a patent is to protect the intellectual property of the inventor.

It is laughable. While it was acceptable two centuries ago, now there are zillions of engineers working with the same problems and thus reinventing the same "inventions".

So why someone should be "the one"?

Nobody I know will ever read the patent database.
BECAUSE WE ARE INVENTORS.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Misunderstanding
by tomcat on Sat 7th Jul 2012 15:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Misunderstanding"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

"As a former Patent Examiner I can tell you the purpose of a grant of a patent is to protect the intellectual property of the inventor.

It is laughable. While it was acceptable two centuries ago, now there are zillions of engineers working with the same problems and thus reinventing the same "inventions".

So why someone should be "the one"?

Nobody I know will ever read the patent database.
BECAUSE WE ARE INVENTORS.
"

The number of competitors is irrelevant. What matters is whether the invention is one that someone skilled in the art would generally consider to be obvious. There have certainly been patents awarded that shouldn't have been granted based on that criterion; but don't forget that the public has the ability to weigh in on patents before they're awarded. I've had a number of patents subjected to objection by Sun Microsystems and others (they were awarded, after review), and the fact that they objected illustrates that the public has a role to play. But few people take that opportunity. Seriously, if you have any issues with the patent system, it needs to START with public comment. That would require no change to the current system, and it would undoubtedly result in better/fewer patents being awarded, if people paid attention.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Misunderstanding
by pjafrombbay on Mon 9th Jul 2012 07:32 in reply to "RE[2]: Misunderstanding"
pjafrombbay Member since:
2005-07-31

I agree; problem is, as you say, the legislation is decades old and has not been brought up-to-date to mirror the world today.

In my day (early 70's) most of the Apple "look and feel" type patents would not have been given Patent protection. Maybe they could have been a registered design but I feel they are too broad even for that.

As I've said before, the Patent Offices of the world simply don't have the resources to keep up any more.

Regards,
Peter

Reply Parent Score: 1