|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 23 2013 @ 12:39 PM EDT |
Are you complaining that the system is not
perfect and that art
can be overlooked?
That is correct, even when the "art" is in the
USPTO files. I can see an excuse when the examiners say "we had orders not to
search on the internet". They have no excuse when it's in their own
files.
Are you complaining that an examiner
and a court can view the
significance of an earlier patent differently?
Not just that - the
specific problem is much, much bigger.
When deciding to grant the patent -
the standard is to review the claims in the narrowest scope
possible
When deciding infringement - the standard is to review the
claims in the broadest scope possible
The same measuring stick should be
used for both. The claims reviewed in the narrowest sense to grant the patent
should be fully clarified for purposes of enforcing the patent - they should be
used to define the four corners the patent exists in.
Are you
alleging fraud?
Absolutely!!!
common definition: Wrongful
deception intended to result in financial gain
The fact the system is
currently operating under the following is a clear fraud on society in order to
enhance the pockets of the few:
The expert in the field is not legally
recognized to understand the patent but is held to trebble damages for reviewing
it and then building something that is deemed to infringe
The terms are
viewed in the narrowest sense when deciding to grant the patent but in the
greatest sense when deciding infringment
The patent is supposed to
clearly disclose the invention so one practiced in the art can build it yet the
disclosure is commonly so broad as to only outline a high level solution to a
problem thereby blocking many implementations without disclosing them
I'm
sure there are others. Those are the three contradictions that are readily
available in the forefront of my thoughts. They are all designed to "reward"
someone who is no longer complying with the exchange patents are supposed to
provide:
Disclosure of a specific invention in exchange for a limited
monopoly
In some instances: the disclosure is not being met while the
illusion is that it has been. In other instances: instead of disclosing
knowledge to the public it's locking away knowledge the public already
has.
As for your explanation, that's an excuse that should not be be used
to be able to escape penalty. Nor does that excuse flow through to the USPTO
who has the information in their files and they clearly failed their
task.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
