|
Authored by: om1er on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
I like your comparison of the invention to cursive writing, especially because I
thought of it that way, too.
The invention has to guess at what the user was attempting to write. My
handwriting is like that. Should I patent it _and_ the guesswork my poor
readers have to go through?
What if cursive handwriting was patented? I am sure at one point in history it
was new and novel and non-obvious. Would that have made it patentable? Same
goes for this method of input on a touch screen. It just is not patentable, in
my humble opinion, for the same reason cursive handwriting isn't.
---
March 23, 2010 - Judgement day.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 12:03 PM EDT |
The patent system was more than adequate before the advent
of computers, gene manipulation, synthetic drugs, etc.
Shortening term lengths would be a major step forward. 20
years was fine when the patent laws were written, but
ridiculous today. One should be able to monetize a software
patent in 1 year, and mechanical patent in 5 years,
electrical in 3 years, and so on. if a company can't do it,
then why reward them? Just reducing term lengths would
improve the system dramatically.
Albert The Unregistered
(I'm still against software patents)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|