|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT |
Reinstate the requirement for a working model. Slightly
tuned.
It's OK for the USPTO to store only an electronic
equivalent, e.g. for a rocket engine, the blueprints and a
recording of a successful demonstrations of the properties
disclosed in the patent; no need to warehouse the engine.
This would help re. ambiguity and feasibility.
If I remember the objection was lack of space.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 31 2012 @ 12:46 AM EDT |
Dunno - there's a range.
For hardware, there are plenty of good ideas that take 10 plus years to get
to the point where you'd bother copying them. Remember that there's no
bar to developing a competing product, just selling it and some markets
take time to grow. Albeit, there is the 'not worth doing' argument for some of
those products.
For software, with real commercialization, you're still looking at 3 plus
years.
I could easily be off by 2x, but probably not off by 5x.
Part of my thought is that ridiculously broad ranging software patents are
partially based on the industry moving much faster than the patent term.
Eg, the laser patent wouldn't have been a problem at all if it had been
granted upon filing - but it was granted decades later - when lasers were in
every nook and cranny of industry.
--Erwin
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
