Author: Amir Ban
Date: 16:41:38 01/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2004 at 05:29:09, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On January 08, 2004 at 22:09:18, Amir Ban wrote: > >[snip] > >>Unfortunately the opposite is true. The PTO initially rejects all patents. >>The examiner does some searches for prior art and throws the patent back at >>you. I've never seen a patent that is granted at first submission. > >Well, they found out that this way they can make more money since re-submitting >a patent-request surely costs money again. ;) > > >>You then modify the patent, explain and argue. If you convinced the examiner, >>he will relent and grant it. This process normally takes two years. > >While this sounds nice in theory, it obviously didn't hinder companies to >_successfully_ register absolutely trivial patents. Of course typically big >companies... > What is trivial ? What is trivial to you may be very non-trivial to another. Patent law uses the criterion of prior art: If something was discussed in publications, then it's not new. If it hasn't been discussed, then it is. You can conceivably patent traveling to the stars. If it's obvious, then show where in the literature it was discussed. Of course, even a Jules Verne quote saying "wouldn't it be great to travel to the stars?" would invalidate such a patent. You can still patent a specific way to reach the stars. If something has never been discussed in the literature, then saying it's trivial is lame. Many inventions are trivial in hindsight only. IMO the criterion is fair. Amir > >>In the case of patents, you should set aside $1 million in lawyer fees before >>going to court, so as a practical matter an issued patent is law. > >That's why some of the small companies in Europe (and the whole OSS movement) >was/is against Software patents in Europe, while big companies (for which 1mil >USD is nothing anyway) like them. For the big companies it's cool - this way >they can sue small companies just when they become a serious threat to them. The >small company won't have a chance, not because they wouldn't win in court, but >because they simply don't have the money to even _start_ the fight. Very nice >and surely the initial idea of patents.. oh well. > > >Sargon
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.