You see... I don't have a problem with the drafting of Software
patents.
I've seen properly drafted Software Patents which have properly
explained the "invention" and the fact that the USPTO readily denies such
patents.
And then I've seen the re-authoring of said patent to the point
it no longer looks anything like the original "invention".
Do you
consider that kind of filing as reasonable to avoid
malpractice?
Personally, I refer to it as:
Obfuscating the invention
till it gets to a point it's granted. Then used against the very
implementations that the USPTO denied in the first place!
My problem very
much lies with certain activities perpetrated by the Patent Lawyers themselves,
not Congress or Senior Judges.
Prime example: Mr. Gene Quinn himself -
against the existing State of Law that says Math is Not Patentable Subject
Matter - appears to be willing to do everything he can to patent Math. Let me
be clear: I don't mean in the sense that "software is math". I mean Mr. Quinn's
own authorings and comments on his own site make it clear he believes Math is
patentable. As a result, he is quite willing to explain Math in such a way as
to argue it's not math.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
