3 ms·
Is this... legal? How on earth was a patent like that approved, and surely it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny, right?
by benrbray 6y ago
Is this... legal? How on earth was a patent like that approved, and surely it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny, right?
- dmitrybrant 6y agoMost people familiar with the US patent office will agree that it's totally broken. The reviewers are not scientists, and aren't required to understand what's being proposed in a patent. They simply perform a search for prior art. As a result, all kinds of pseudoscience has gotten "patented", for example this patent for detecting "tachyonized" materials (you know, materials that have been infused with tachyons, the hypothetical particles that travel faster than light): https://patents.google.com/patent/US7760357B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7760357B2/en
- jcranmer 6y agoIt looks like the patent was approved in between the CAFC decision of State St. (subject matter is patentable if it produces a "useful, concrete, and tangible result") and SCOTUS's Bilski decision (State St. is on crack and not good case law). Bilski and later Alice have made it rather clear that these kinds of abstract patents aren't going to fly, not that it stops patent attorneys from pretending otherwise. So this patent very likely wouldn't hold up in court. It was approved in a time when the USPTO more or less gave up on adjudicating patentability (thanks to the State St. decision).