I didn't say the filing lawyer, I said the ones named on the
invention.
Oh. I see that now.
Did you know
that lawyers are named as the inventor in a
huge number of patents. In fact I
wouldn't mind betting that in fact the
majority of patents these days are for
inventions made by lawyers.
These might not be your words, but
evidently, you agree with them. And
I agree that there are some patents for
inventions made by lawyers -- even
Abraham Lincoln had one.
In any case, it clearly
shouldn't be too hard to name one of these patents and
point out the lawyer
named as the inventor.
Perhaps a lawyer named as an inventor
ought to be
deposed to explain the invention next
time.
Perhaps you don't know this, but the inventors of a
patent are very
commonly deposed to explain their inventions. One reason this
is done by a
defendant's counsel is to get, for the record, the words of an
inventor saying
something damaging about a patent or how poorly the patent
actually does
explain his invention.
However, as to the filing
lawyer re-writing in legalese, you
are aware that the USPTO advises patent
proposers how the specifications
ought to be written and the number of software
patents that are not in "full,
clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any
person skilled in the
technological area to which the invention pertains, or
with which it is most
nearly connected, to make and use the same" is a
substantial indication of the
rewriting by non-inventors of software inventions
(which means the
specifications are no longer in the terms required by a
skilled practitioner!)
and unless the re-writer is also fully cogniscent of the
original technology, it
cannot be guaranteed to be an exact translation of the
original, nor can
translation out of legalese guarantee to be
correct.
The "advice" given by the patent office is merely an
exact quotation of
the
current law, which, as you know, is NOT enacted by the USPTO. And
if the
"the number of software patents that are not in 'full, clear, concise, and
exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the technological area to which
the invention pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and
use the same' is a substantial indication of the rewriting by non-inventors of
software inventions," then there ought to be many such
patents
that you can give as examples. Among these examples, there
must
be at least one simple enough for you
to rewrite at least in part
so as to give a non-trivial example of how you
think it fails to meet these
requirements and to show how it should have been
written to satisfy
your requirements.
Then why don't
you become a patent agent,
yourself?
because I don't intend to
sink that low on the evolutionary
scale.
Then I won't ask you
to do anything beneath your dignity, such as to
draft an entire application.
Just choose a single non-trival offending
section and rewrite it to show
us how you think it should have been
done. If your only argument is that you
are higher on the "evolutionary scale"
than someone who drafts patent
applications, then all I can conclude is that
ad hominem attacks are the
only proof you have.
I'm still waiting for that example.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|