|
2010-01-26
, 02:05
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#262
|
You are talking about something different. You are talking about whole classes of patents, rather than individual patents. The Congress makes the patent laws, and the Courts interpret them. The Patent Office implements the laws and adapts that implementation based on judicial decisions. The Patent Office doesn't have the power to just stop granting patents in a particular field. If you want to eliminate a class of patents, talk to your Congressman or petition the Courts.
|
2010-01-26
, 02:07
|
|
Posts: 610 |
Thanked: 391 times |
Joined on Feb 2006
@ DC, USA
|
#263
|
I say that based on
a) I know someone that works in the USPO doing this type of work
b) I know people working in DOC that do audits of the various offices and Bureaus.
c) Wasn't there a patent in the recent years that someone got by that was the basis of computing (something about lists in programming). I can't remember the conversation I had with my friend about which specific one it was though.
|
2010-01-26
, 02:16
|
Posts: 4,556 |
Thanked: 1,624 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#264
|
And they grant any patent application with claims that are written "in language only a lawyer or computer scientist will understand"? Without checking to see whether or not it is actually patentable?
.
|
2010-01-26
, 02:18
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#265
|
|
2010-01-26
, 02:22
|
|
Posts: 610 |
Thanked: 391 times |
Joined on Feb 2006
@ DC, USA
|
#266
|
They devote time to check whether it's patentable, but they don't have unlimited time. Thus that's why if you write it in a lawyer or computer scientist language, the longer it takes to understand it and the more likely it is to be misinterpreted. That combined with the time crunch is what causes the problem.
You think the USPO has tons of computer scientists to look at every patent with an extremely fine magnifying glass?
|
2010-01-26
, 02:23
|
|
Posts: 610 |
Thanked: 391 times |
Joined on Feb 2006
@ DC, USA
|
#267
|
|
2010-01-26
, 02:27
|
Posts: 4,556 |
Thanked: 1,624 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#268
|
The claims are required to be clear:
35 U.S.C. 112: "The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention."
If the claims are unclear, they are unpatentable.
The Patent Office has the highest number of scientists and engineers of any agency in the Federal Government.
|
2010-01-26
, 05:50
|
Posts: 336 |
Thanked: 610 times |
Joined on Apr 2008
@ France
|
#269
|
We Don't Need People Like You (also from Dan M)
Many years back, when I was fresh out of school, I decided to apply for a job at the United Stated Patent and Trademark Office. The USPTO had started to grant patents on computer programs and, as such, was looking for Computer Science Patent Examiners.
After filling out the requisite stack of application paperwork, I was granted an interview. When I arrived for the interview, there was a small waiting room for candidates for the position. Half an hour later, my name was called and I entered the interviewer's office.
I sat there in silence for roughly 8 seconds until he turned the résumé around and pointed to the second line, "what is this?" he demanded, jabbing roughly at the education section.
"Uhh," I paused, wondering if I had misspelled my degree. "Umm.... Bachelor of Computer Science... Carnegie Mellon... School of Computer Sci—"
"That's what I thought" he said scornfully.
I blankly started. After a few moments I responded, "I'm sorry?"
"Do you have any idea what we do here, Dan?"
"Yes, I do", I stuttered, "you examine patent applications on a variety of systems and...whatnot. Right?"
"Exactly! We don't need people like you here," he said, tossing my résumé back at me. "We only accept Math and Engineering majors here!"
Obviously, my career aspirations at the USPTO died shortly after that. Though, after the experience, I tend not to be as surprised as others when we hear the latest story about somebody being granted a patent for "inventing" the scrollbar or something.
|
2010-01-27
, 01:46
|
|
Posts: 610 |
Thanked: 391 times |
Joined on Feb 2006
@ DC, USA
|
#270
|
Tags |
apple, intellectual property, lawsuit, nokia, nonsense magnet, patent infringement |
|
Nokia 770 Internet Tablet = best device ever made
Deuteronomy 13:6-10; 2 Kings 2:23-24; Judges 19:22-29