|
|
|
| Authored by: mcinsand on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
I really think we should start charging 'inventors' and their companies for
patent filings when those skilled in the art would find the invention to be
'trivial.' Of course the best current example would be Apple's rounded corners
patent. Only an idiot of a designer would make a portable device with sharp
corners. No, I don't have the detailed plans worked out for just how we would
implement means to begin rolling back the ridiculousness. However, a few choice
examples might suffice. Perhaps it would be good to have a USPTO Supreme
Examiner Cluster. Let's say we did have a dozen or so examiners not tied to any
particular ongoing patents, but just examiners that look over patents to check
for examples where the examiners or inventors really dropped the ball. In my
research, not only do we inventors ask, but our attorneys ask, as well, whether
we honestly believe that an invention is novel and why. In short, can we
honestly say that we believe that the invention is new (not released
commercially) and not anticipated by prior publications, patents, or
commercialized products. It's time we took this farther; we should start
checking to see if those expressed 'beliefs' are in line with what would be
reasonable for a person skilled in the respective art.
The problem is that some companies, especially software companies, are
apparently throwing everything they can at the wall to see what 'sticks.' Any
idea they can slip past the examiner to get an issued number is then a weapon.
If we are going to continue to have a patent system, we need a check against
this. Many of us have fallen against the patent system, especially after the
trolling activities of SCOX, Oracle, Apple and Interval. However, I don't think
that getting rid of the patent system overall will be as easy as making the case
that we need to make changes to defend our economy by making trolling a risky
gamble. We won't be able to prevent it, but, if a troll knows that he/she can
face consequences, then trolling should drop.
Again, back to the design patent of rounded corners. That a design patent is a
watered down version of a standard patent is irrelevant. Apple was able to
obtain a degree of protection over a concept that not only is anticipated, but
it is a long-established norm for portable devices.
To reduce this nonsense, we can't let it continue to be low risk to the
litigator!
Regards,
mc[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
