poor SW patents
Posted May 5, 2009 16:22 UTC (Tue) by pflugstad
In reply to: Long discussions about long names
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.
to post comments)