Dean Anderson said, and is ">"
>While finding prior art is hard problem in any field, it would be helpful
>if the Patent Office hired more experts in the fields that they offer
>patents in, and in particular, more computer scientists.
Dan says:
In the above, a chemist would substitute "Chemist" for computer scientist, a
Mechanical engineer the same. Obviously, the patent inspectors know there is
probably public domain material, but it doesn't seem like they have a
reasonable access to it. The review process looks degrading to the patent
inspector if the applicant goes over their head in their internal appeals
process. So its easier to grant it. Plus, the funding, as per much of
federal funding U.S. policies, is stupid. The fees don't "go" for the work
done. { long story }. So, no matter how much the application costs; ( medium
costly depends on # of claims, mostly), no inspector gets a leisurely trip
down to Walmart to see about a shelf full of "prior art".
Dean says:
>Such patents as this are clearly mistakes, and are frequently overturned
>on review.
Dan says:
As a reality check I just walked over to a desk here and touched an object
recently contested in a Patent battle. *any* trip to a flea market could
fill a pickup truck of goods built before 1940 that show the patent is at
least partially invalid. (some claims... stink). But, the Grantee won. Why?
Its cheaper to be right and lose, then pay a license fee... than be right
and win.
Dean says:
>if you file right before product
>release, and that product catches on. 18 months is a long time for
>software. 30 months, and you are into lifecycle maturity. You've already
>made commitments to using the software. Now you have to pay whatever they
>want to charge. If the patent is solid, there is no way out, not even for
>OJ or MJ, or BG for that matter.
Dan says:
The general principle is built on pain and suffering. The trick is, (like
Sam Ting said about how to win Nobel prizes: "I think you should be first,
and be right"). "Interference" is super complicated, when they actually
overlap like you described. I think if I remember correctly, it happens in
about 5% of the cases, so its a lot. No doubt, its a pipeline, so one begins
to wonder what public interest is served with long delays... I can't think
of any. A usual way to deal with the reality is to use the granted one as a
citation, make a trivial improvement, and now you have reset the clock 2
years or so. Of course, if there are real damages, all this is retroactive,
plus often a bonus multiplier of 1:3 for being a evil-doer, so its a
financial burden.
Dean says:
>But anything halfway novel, and new. Well, that is another
>story: Patent it or someone else will.
Dan says:
What is "Obvious to one practised in the art"; (which is the US PTO test for
novelty). Our patent attorney says if it takes more than 45 seconds for the
dumbest person actually employed in that field to figure it out, then its
not "obvious".
Who know for sure, but I doubt this was the intention 300 years ago when
this concept emerged.
(*) 45 seconds is "not" a lot of head scratching.
(*) The dumbest person employed in a field is not about best of breed ideas.
But Biochem, design, and general patents have slightly different time frames
and admisability rules, so maybe this is a little bit of a start. Improve
the system like so?
(*) Second dumbest person
(*) 1.5 minutes of thinking
(*) Different durations for different kinds of patents. Maybe software
should be sort enough to make it functionless completely. That would suit me
fine. I think many good programs behind the scenes do things in non-obvious
ways, but somehow because someone else stumbles into the same proceedure, it
just doesn't seem like patentable material to me, at all.
XOR operations for a blinking cursor? Can you think of another way NOT to do
that?
Dan
