3 ms·

The technical term is not 'a general practitioner' but 'one ordinarily skilled in the art.' And that ordinary skill is in the directly relevant art. So the pr

The technical term is not 'a general practitioner' but 'one ordinarily skilled in the art.' And that ordinary skill is in the directly relevant art. So the proper question is 'was the invention novel and non-obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art?' And here we run into endless problems because one of the best tested psychological phenomena is the 'hindsight effect.' Once things are invented and become part of popular culture or of the culture and lore of a technical sub-group they are (remarkably quickly) considered to be 'obvious.' Hordes of people who have never invented anything in their lives moan about how 'obvious' this or that patent is. If it is so easy, they should just stop moaning and go make those billions you so mistakenly believe are so easily to be earned by inventing things that are blindingly obvious. This is an absurd argument. It really is time to put it to bed. If something is blindingly obvious at the time, it probably won't get a patent. The USPTO and other such agencies are not perfect but they are not total imbeciles. Will some bad patents get through - yes. But if you want to spend your whole life focusing on edge cases why spend it on patents? Why not do something useful and campaign for prisoners' rights? After all, we know that some prisoners are innocent? So the whole penal system must be abolished, right? If we are going to have sensible discussions about patent reform we have to get some of the basic facts straight. And one of those basic facts is that what is 'obvious' now wasn't necessarily 'obvious' then and no amount of whinging from today will make that act any different. It has been 'obvious' now for some time that if you have HIV you should take antiretrovirals but it wasn't in 1982 when we started to identify AIDS. That's just 28 years ago. 'Obvious' is a slippery term - get used to it. There are no useful discussions about patents without getting over it.

hn_decay 15y ago
There is no hindsight effect about the notion of identifying classes of text in a string of text. I fully and completely anticipate that patent being invalidated. "If something is blindingly obvious at the time, it probably won't get a patent. The USPTO and other such agencies are not perfect but they are not total imbeciles." The USPTO has shown, time and time again, to be willing imebeciles. They have habitually approved virtually all patents, opening them for review only when contested. I have zero expectation that they are doing any serious review of these patents, and they most certainly are not consulting any industry experts to gauge the true novelty of a patent.
- petegrif 15y ago
  You may or may not be correct about the fact that there was prior art in the case of the Apple suit. That however does not refute my key point which is that time and time again discussions include endless statements about how obvious something is, not a discussion about how obvious it was then. As for your statements about the USPTO that is just a rant. It doesn't contribute anything to a real discussion.

hn_decay 15y ago

There is no hindsight effect about the notion of identifying classes of text in a string of text. I fully and completely anticipate that patent being invalidated. "If something is blindingly obvious at the time, it probably won't get a patent. The USPTO and other such agencies are not perfect but they are not total imbeciles." The USPTO has shown, time and time again, to be willing imebeciles. They have habitually approved virtually all patents, opening them for review only when contested. I have zero expectation that they are doing any serious review of these patents, and they most certainly are not consulting any industry experts to gauge the true novelty of a patent.

petegrif 15y ago
You may or may not be correct about the fact that there was prior art in the case of the Apple suit. That however does not refute my key point which is that time and time again discussions include endless statements about how obvious something is, not a discussion about how obvious it was then. As for your statements about the USPTO that is just a rant. It doesn't contribute anything to a real discussion.