|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 07:04 PM EDT |
..that people under this new system should be
rewarded for their efforts.
I would suggest that whoever identified the prior art
that defeated the
patent application should receive a bounty. This could
be paid out of the
bountiful income USPO receives from application fees.
Clearly whomever
identifies prior art is making an important contribution
. In fact, he/she
is
doing USPO's job for them, and clearly deserves
something for the
effort. Such
a reward system would really encourage
participation, for
the betterment of
all. I won't believe USPO is really
serious about this
endeaver until they
both improve ease of use of the
website and they adopt a
compensation system
such as I describe. Until then, I
will assume this is
just PR. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 06:31 AM EDT |
| Additionally, this kind of process can make sense
only if you can post
against the patent during its
whole lifespan, not during a short few
months
during the application period.
I agree. Even if they don't
continually re-evaluate the patents, they should at least continue to collect
prior art references so that if someone later pays to have the patent
re-examined, those references will be available. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 12:53 PM EDT |
>Why then should it be worthwhile for volunteers?
In my specific case, everything in the patent was described in the
literature before 2000. At least 70% of the claims in the patent were
described in the literature before 1900 CE. The patent was applied for in
2002, and granted in 2003,
Then there is a second patent, granted in the mid 1990's, most of whose
claims were described in the literature, prior to 1900. And a third patent,
also granted in the mid 1990s, of which most of the claims were
described in the literature prior to 1800, but claims to embrace the entire
field, and every application in it that "uses a computer". The only
limitation is that doing the same thing by hand, is not a patent violation.
(Should I ignore the other patent in the field, that has the same
"limitations"?)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
