|
|
|
| Authored by: mrisch on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
That is a fantastic idea. Crowdsourced obviousness testing.
Peer-to-patent is trying to do something like this, but there
you have the claims, so you lose your idea of people coming up
with the solution not in hindsight.
The practical problem is that there are 200,000+ patent
applications filed each year, which makes it hard.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 07:02 AM EDT |
Just a contrary view: not necessarily one that I hold.
In many cases, the major step that lead to the discovery was determining that
there was a problem, or at the very least, clearly defining what the problem
was. From there, the way (or ways) to fix the problem are obvious. I am reminded
of Bret Victor's talk "Inventing on Principle" linked in the newspicks
over the weekend.
Should, and how would, this system reward this sort of breakthrough?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 11:50 AM EDT |
Basically, if the same solution can be designed independently within a couple of
months, the patent is either covered by prior art or obvious, so throw it out.
Nice. Sensible. Practical.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
