|
|
|
| Authored by: BJ on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 04:08 PM EDT |
Please don't react so strongly. I wasn' attacking any person, let alone you
personally. For all I know we may be on 'they same side' in this (let's be
general and call it the side of sense and rationality).
All I'm saying is that you, as a technician (software engineer, whatever -- at
least not an attorney) are to decide on the novelty of a certain let us say
'procedure' or 'process' or 'approach' or 'design'.
That judgement on novelty, by you, is now going to have a new life, having been
adopted by attorneies, and being used in a /judicial process/.
The engineer doesn't know all the intricacies of how judicial judgements are
made and (more inportantly) how they will stand up, what is and isn't important,
where the pitfalls are, you name it.
The attorney doesn't know about the intricacies of the engineering process
(let's say computer programming, and/or the general design of computer <->
human interfaces). We have seen Oracle vs. Google and the difficulty that
cropped up in the courtroom of a term that might seem very clear to you and me,
but apparently can lead to a lot of confusion and misuse and outright abuse (to
advance one's side): runtime.
Anyways, some result of the coming together of these two is brought in front of
the USPTO. At best, there the problem repeats. Is it programmer that review?
Are they attornies. Can you insist on one or the other? Are they hybrids? Who
knows!
So the result is a toss up, as we have seen -- and little should we be
surprised, really.
That should encourage us to be critical of the process, examine why and where it
goes wrong (it could be an outrageous amount of expertise being required for any
application, these days), and subsequently seek to formulate fixes and/or
alternatives.
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 11:49 PM EDT |
Thing is, the same kind of junk that shows up in software patents also shows
up in non-software patents.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
