|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, January 18 2013 @ 04:15 AM EST |
I suppose it all revolves around what the courts think the Constitution
intended. If it intended that it should be possible to monopolise all possible
ways of doing something because that promotes the practice of invention then you
would be right.
I don't think that interpretation of new and useful is true to the
Constitutional intent.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, January 18 2013 @ 11:12 AM EST |
Sorry to re-quote your whole comment, but it makes the answer,
easier.It doesn't have to be *more* useful. You can still
patent "a
different mousetrap", without proving that
it is indeed "a better mousetrap".
To argue that
something is useful, you just have to present one
witness that
is willing to testify that "yes, this
is useful to me". It only needs to work,
it doesn't
have to be good. Or did I misunderstand this?
I was
unhappy with my previous answer of 'it's unconstitutional' because it smacks of
SCO!
ยง101. - Inventions patentable
Whoever invents or
discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
If it is
a new invention you just have to convince the USPTO that it is useful and novel.
I don't think roping in your maiden aunt to say 'It's useful!' is sufficient for
a patent award.
The only other thing you can patent is an improvement to
an existing invention. By existing invention, the law is referring to the class
of machine, the mousetrap, rather than one person's invented
mousetrap.
Thus, if you invent an alternative mousetrap rather than a
better mousetrap, you avoid existing patents, but you cannot patent it in its
own right.
Again, it is up to the inventor to convince the USPTO that
it is both novel and an improvement to get the patent.
We have to
remember the exclusion of KSR v. Teleflex which warns about the obvious
combination of prior art to obtain the 'improved' invention.
That is my
interpretation of the law and we all know that real lawyers can be much more
innovative when doing that!---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
