| |||||||||||||
poor SW patentspoor SW patentsPosted May 5, 2009 16:45 UTC (Tue) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375)In reply to: poor SW patents by pflugstad Parent article: Long discussions about long names
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.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||