On Tuesday 17 October 2006 01:42, M Harris wrote:
Patents protect *ideas*
- no, they protect inventions. You can't patent an idea by itself. You must also be able to demonstrate a feasible implementation of that idea. That's a very big and important difference. Coupled with the requirement that the invention be novel (no evidence can be found that anybody has thought of it before) and that it be non-obvious, that suggests that in order to obtain a granted patent one must indeed have created something worth protecting (and, in a capitalist system, profiting from). A problem is that, particularly in the US system, patent examination is arguably inadequate, in that patents are granted for which many or all of the above requirements may not be met. In that legal framework, the office's approach often appears from the outside to be "if nobody objects to the application, then grant it". The onus is left on other organisations and individuals to prevent inappropriate patent applications from being granted, often by producing prior art to prove the absence of novelty (proof of obviousness is harder - "Anybody could have thought of that ....."). Patents may also be revoked after grant, though this tends to be even more expensive. In a patent system with an adequate process of examination, only truly clever, novel and practical inventions, whose inventors arguably (and in a capitalist system, inevitably) deserve to benefit exclusively from the fruits of their endeavours for a short while, are granted patent protection. I'm not claiming any such system exists, but a central tenet of such a patent system is strong examination. Such a system should produce, in 20 years, a set of strong patents. Contrary to conventional wisdom, patents do not protect only large corporations. One idea which has been put forward is that patent infringement be a criminal offence, so that the state takes on the burden of prosecuting patent infringers. In a state with a patent system believed by the government to be good, then the state should surely have no problem with taking on this burden? A proposal exists that "lightweight" patents, with a lower cost, a lower examination threshold and a shorter life, should be introduced, ostensibly in order that more inventors might benefit from protection for their inventions than may under the current system. Should inventors have the right to profit from their inventions? A patent is a pact between an inventor and the rest of the world: "If I tell you how it works, you promise not to do it this way for 20 years". An alternative approach is trade secrets. -- Bill Gallafent.