|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 04:30 AM EDT |
To have to pervert the patent system in order to protect a real and valid
invention for which the patent system was intended to provide protection is
horrible and, according to many Groklaw comments, surprisingly common. There is
also the parallel situation whereby inventors are coerced into contributing to
worthless patents by their employer.
It takes me a little further in my appreciation of the patent lawyer actions.
They intend not to protect the true invention, but to make the patent as
valuable as possible within the patent system. I avoid the term 'patent rules'
because I think what they do conflicts with the word and the spirit of the law
and the Constitution.
There is a triple problem, here;
The acceptance of patents on non-statutory subject matter (e.g. math, natural
science and software),
The obfuscation of patents such that one skilled in the relevant art could not
make an example of the invention,
The broadening of the patent claims far beyond the inventors actual invention.
This is akin to the patent lawyer using the hindsight of the inventor's true
innovation to manufacture a bigger and more encompassing invention.
In the absence of the revolutionary 'Chinese Solution' of shooting all lawyers,
scientists and engineers, I cannot come up with another more appropriate
solution.
However, accurately enforcing the patent law, regardless of cost (to commerce)
and expense (to the patent and legal system), would be a major improvement.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
