|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 08:53 PM EDT |
I was simply speaking to the underlying exchange:
A
Monopoly
for
The knowledge of the invention
If I were to list the
biggest problem I see with the existing system it would be (realized this
recently):
Patent Lawyers always get paid, therefore always have financial
incentive to file and argue a patent - yet they conversely have zero risk, no
disincentive, nothing to limit them!
With no bar in place, there is no
behavior limit. They are absolutely free to
argue:
E=MC2
really is:
A method for determining the
energy equivalent of a mass comprising:
determining the
mass;and
multiplying the mass by the square of the speed of light, thereby
determining
the energy equivilent.
Even knowing the Supreme's
explicitly stated E=MC2 is not patentable subject
matter.
Place a limit of some kind on what Patent Lawyers can do - and I
think we'll start to see some of these word games decrease. But that really
depends on how well such a limit can be measured, how high that bar is, and how
much it would cost a Lawyer - personally - every time s/he crosses that
bar.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 08:23 AM EDT |
Funny how the courts think a programmer "skilled in the art" is
extremely
capable when it comes to being able to reimplement extremely fuzzy
function "disclosed" by a software patent.
And yet the Patent Office does not apply the same high expectations of
their capability to reject the patenting of ideas and algorithms which
should be OBVIOUS to software practitioners skilled in the art.
The system is completely broken, and should be scrapped![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|