|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 04:33 PM EST |
I agree that many, if not all, software patents would be
eliminated because
of the lack of specifics. Apple's bounce
back patent should be invalid because
it presumably doesn't
say how much it should bounce back. Patents that
survived,
like most recipe patents (yes, those do indeed exist), would
require
too many specifics that workarounds would be easy
(like Apple's new touchpad
patent). [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 15 2013 @ 08:00 PM EST |
This is common with most patents. The vaguer the description, the wider
the range the patent holder can try to use the patent against.
The US Patent and Trademark Office is so badly understaffed, that it isn't
capable of properly evaluating patent applications. The basic assumption
that "more patents equals more innovation" is flawed. In my opinion
the
USPTO should work under the assumption that all applications are invalid
until proven otherwise.
Constitutionally this view is defensible. It would however be a massive
change, and until Congress is willing to properly fund the USPTO, it isn't
feasible.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|