| |||||||||||||
Long discussions about long namesLong discussions about long namesPosted May 5, 2009 13:56 UTC (Tue) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)In reply to: Long discussions about long names by JoeBuck Parent article: Long discussions about long names
> The VFAT patents are written very broadly, and appear to cover essentially any mechanism that lets you store long names in a database with a name length limit.
Even when accepting that software patents make sense at all, how can such low level and poor engineering hacks be seriously considered as "non-obvious, inventive steps"? Does your electrician file a patent everytime he finds a clever wiring trick to workaround a badly designed panel? How can honest patent examiners and judges be fouled so easily and so persistently? Why is fixing this problem not as simple as bringing independent university professors in front of a court so they can affirm: "If one of my student had 'invented' this patented solution in a exam, he would have got an average or bad mark".
Has the whole world really gone insane? Or is just a minority of people incredily dragging everyone else in their insanity? In the latter case, can we please all come back to our senses and just ignore them instead of granting them way too much time and credit?
(Log in to post comments)
poor SW patents Posted May 5, 2009 16:22 UTC (Tue) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] It's very simple: up until very recently, the US PTO assumed that anything worth must had been patented. So if a new patent application came in and it doesn't directly cover something already patented, then ergo, it must be "non-obvious and inventive". Couple this with SW patent examiners that were fresh out of college (or very inexperienced) and you have a recipe for all kinds of completely obvious and crap patents like pretty much all SW patents in the last 15 years.
poor SW patents Posted May 5, 2009 16:45 UTC (Tue) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375) [Link]
I totally disagree. The case law describing the boundaries of patentability changed and explicitly allowed software patents, but the USPTO examiners completely forgot to look at non-patent textbooks and documentation when deciding what the 'state of the art' was. That meant that the bar for novelty and obviousness are way lower than they should be, resulting in many rubbish patents.
poor SW patents Posted May 5, 2009 16:58 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Interestingly, one of the things that came up at the software patent conference I attended in March is that, as patent examiners gain more experience on the job, they tend to approve more patents. It's the new, green ones who ask the hardest questions. It's not a matter of inexperience; it's more one of being sucked into a system which sees its mission as the granting of patents.
Career paths Posted May 5, 2009 18:15 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] I have met former patent examiners now working for applicants. How many examiners go on to jobs at firms seeking patents? Is approving a patent a way to apply for a job in the private sector, like approving a big contract for DoD is a way to apply for a job at a military contractor?
poor SW patents Posted May 5, 2009 23:15 UTC (Tue) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
> It's not a matter of inexperience; it's more one of being sucked into a system which sees its mission as the granting of patents.
So, even if immoral and barely legal, it is still fine as long as the "system" and the "mission" want it. Translation: we are doomed.
poor SW patents Posted May 9, 2009 20:47 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] It's not a matter of inexperience; it's more one of being sucked into a system which sees its mission as the granting of patents.So, even if immoral and barely legal, it is still fine as long as the "system" and the "mission" want it. Translation: we are doomed No one here as said anything about it being fine.
|
|||||||||||||