|
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT |
Except they're not peers.
If they were, they would have a decent grasp of what the patents were about.
That's what the word (in the Magna Carta sense) *MEANS*!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Jury of *peers* - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 04:30 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 03:46 PM EDT |
written by lawyers who are not expert in the art, rubber stamped by
patent officials who are not expert in the art and do not have time to
check for prior art, and judged for "obviousness to someone expert in
the art" by judges and juries who are not expert in the art.
No wonder the patent system is a complete mess.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
... and part of the problem is that patents, by law, are supposed to DESCRIBE
the invention so that it can be reproduced. I have rarely seen patents that
actually do that. Patent holders want the patent, but they also want to keep
trade secrets, so they write obfuscated patents. Obfuscation also helps slide
prior art past the examiner as well. In technical fields, technically weak
people use flowery language to hide their ignorance as well.
So, in a sane world the rule ought would be: if any part of a patent does not
make sense in plain language, then it is presumed invalid.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT
|
|
|
|