| |||||||||||||
poor SW patentspoor SW patentsPosted May 5, 2009 16:22 UTC (Tue) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224)In reply to: Long discussions about long names by marcH Parent article: Long discussions about long names 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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||