Too many appear to think the patent system is supposed to ensure recovery of
investments - for example investments into R&D. And they author their
arguments accordingly. For example, John at the top of the thread
says:
is there a way to protect the research
investment
If John wants to protect an investment he should be
investing in insurance.
The patent system is not an insurance system.
The patent system works by providing an opportunity - that's all. But that
opportunity comes at a cost of having to fully disclose the invention to
society. A disclosure that many fail at because they broadly patent their
ideas.
It also has other limitations such as not being allowed to be
applied to math.
The patent system also does not have anything about
money involved in the decision to grant patents. One does not get to acquire a
patent just because one invested a large sum of money.
You ask why I keep
looking for tangents. I don't need to look for them. Individuals keep
misrepresenting (my humble opinion as this all is) patent law and I'm just doing
what I can to present a different perspective so those who don't know that come
along later have both concepts to consider.
I keep getting told I'm
wrong. I'm wrong about:
software patents shouldn't exist
the law
can be reasonable understood so software patents don't exist
the
genetics of the human body shouldn't be patentable
math is not patent
eligible subject matter
this next one is my favorite
the process "apply
2+2= on a calculator, review the result" is not patent eligible
And
now:
a statue is not patent eligible - I suspect if the Supremes reviewed
that patent - they'd agree
It's ironic how much the Supremes appear to
agree with my conclusions on the Law..... and now the Federal Circuit and PTAB
(Patent Trial And Appeal Board) are also tentatively agreeing with my
perspective. Tentatively because they do so perhaps only because they feel they
have no choice. Perhaps PTAB is more willing then the Federal
Circuit.
If you don't like me pointing out an alternative view - you can
easily correct me. All you have to do is point to where in Patent Law it speaks
to patenting with a basis towards investment. I'll help make it easier by
providing the basic 101 language:
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.
You know.... I just
don't see "high investment" being a requirement for a patent grant. And I
certainly see nothing anywhere in patent law that indicates a patent will cover
investment costs.
As a result - in my humble opinion (as always) - to
speak to recouping investment costs when the discussion is focused on basic 101
patent eligibility testing is to either:
a) misunderstand basic 101 patent
eligibility
or
b) be deliberately clouding the issue away from a clear
examination of basic 101 patent eligibility
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
