|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
The parent post posits a dichotomy: either the patent
includes a novel robot (i.e., analogy for general purpose
computer) or the patent includes a novel application of
a store bought robot (i.e., analogy for custom SW running
on a store bought computer). Here, I mention a case could
include both simpler patent cases.
Running custom SW on any store bought robot, or computer,
to automate an existing activity, baking pies or crunching
financial data, is excluded matter. The custom SW could be
copyrighted. Trade secrets could also apply here. In real
situations, small improvements could deserve patents of
narrow scope.
I call these dubious SW patents, "anti patents" because the
poor people and their businesses that actually do social
good by making better products like robots and computers
are harmed by the roughly 15 percent whose main strategy
is to game the system to the maximum.
Incredibly, some U.S. jurists consistently determine that
robots and computers and practical devices cannot be sold
or used for overly broad purposes like making pies and
crunching data. Gaming the system with the U.S. legal
system is like rock, paper, scissors. Anti patents always
beat good patents. Society loses access to our technology.
Anti patents are so overarching as to retroactively
include matter that dates back decades or centuries,
creating an impenetrable patent thicket.
How could a U.S. jurist defy the U.S. Supreme Court over
and over in order to create new U.S. Common Law from whole
cloth of their own fabric?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
