| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Um, no.Um, no.Posted Oct 31, 2008 16:56 UTC (Fri) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)In reply to: Um, no. by dwheeler Parent article: Court Greatly Limits Software And Business Method Patents (Techdirt)
It seems to say 'yes' so often that it's having trouble justifying ANY limits on patentability that is consistent and justifiable. The problem is that the patent office is funded on the basis of patents that are granted, not patent applications that are refused. Besides, granting lots of patents makes companies look very innovative, and the patent office look very busy, which is also a good thing. There is no pressure whatsoever on patent agents to refuse anything but the most obviously rubbish patents (like, for example, perpetual motion machines - and some of those still get through), so the tendency is to accept pretty much everything and let the courts sort things out later.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||