|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.
The phrasing of this law
intrigues me. One way to read the phrase "may obtain a patent" is to infer that
one would "obtain a patent from the U.S. government". But another way to read it
would be as the plain language seems to imply, that patents may only be obtained
by those who "invent[] or discover[]" the subject matter.
If the second
reading were strictly applied, one might consider that a patent could
only be "obtained" by the original inventor or discoverer, and that
they were the only ones that legitimately could hold a patent. If one were to
construe the term "obtain" to mean "purchase" or "acquire from the original
issuee", then this would seem to be an implicit ban on selling a patent to
another.
I'd love to see a decision on this point, banning the sale of
patents back and forth. IHMO that might stop a lot of patent
trolling.
(Well, I can dream, can't I?) --- "When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 01:00 PM EDT |
Again, each of these patents has the "for the purpose of" problem. The
normal action (illicit customer feedback) is patented as unique because it's
"for the purpose of" providing a "new" means of improving
(unspecified) product(s).
It doesn't patent the process (getting feedback) it patents the intended purpose
for the data collected.
This is the flaw of all software patents. They list a bunch of well defined
technologies (in the least well defined wording possible) and then tack on a
purpose statement. (It's not "a database" it's "a database set up
to collect customer feedback" etc.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
Applying the word "process" to math and thinking is a new thing
compared to the constitution etc.
We need to fix that word by adding the phrase "chemical or mechanical"
in front of it.
All of those words around "process" are nouns. But with the advent of
"data processing" we "verbed that noun". Now we are
patenting anything we can apply the verb onto. This is not correct.
Note that most of the verbs in modern English started life as nouns. You can
"machine a part" "tree a coon" "post a bill"
"staple a page" etc.
The problem is that the law didn't respond correctly when the common use of the
word "process" made the leap from noun to verb. So now we have patents
that patent the act of changing data in general instead of the particular steps
of changing a real thing into another real thing.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT |
It looks like you're quoting from the MPEP, at least the "useful, tangible,
or concrete" stuff. I'm not sure you're aware, but those guidelines are
pre-
Bilski. To get the current guidelines google "memoranda to the examiners
corps" and search for 101 or mayo. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Old law. - Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, June 09 2012 @ 03:48 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
Apple Patents the Wedge
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|