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 525657
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Misunderstanding
by viton on Fri 6th Jul 2012 18:08 UTC 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[4]: Misunderstanding
by viton on Sun 8th Jul 2012 13:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Misunderstanding"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

The number of competitors is irrelevant.
The people who working with the same problems are using the same methods. Because experienced people have a common background / common sense.
Even the lightbulb and radio has track conflicting claims.
Now the situation is completely absurd.

but don't forget that the public has the ability to weigh in on patents before they're awarded.

So you suggest that all engineers should hire patent lawyers just to monitor the current "patent horizon" and read through all patent database after they write a line of code/solder a chip.

Patents exist only for benefit of corporations/trolls today. Small company/individual who actually develop/produce may not have enough resources.
I don't have issues with USPTO. Seems I live in more civilized region =)

Reply Parent Score: 3

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