3 ms·

>ROTFL. It's more like "with software, the patent is virtually always invalid." // Yes, the establishment of prior art is particularly hard for software IMO, b

>ROTFL. It's more like "with software, the patent is virtually always invalid." // Yes, the establishment of prior art is particularly hard for software IMO, but that's mainly not an EPO issue (per the OP) as software patents in Europe are much more restricted compared to before the USPTO. Your timing is broadly right IME, probably a bit generous for less complex areas (though it varies and EPO spend a bit longer). Note that in part it's an industry issue - if software companies wanted to help them they can point out prior art before parents are granted (it's part of the process in EPO and USPTO jurisdictions). >I'm sure there are people better than I am, but I can invalidate practically any software patent. // EPO _granted_ patents? I'm highly doubtful you can do that in the normal search period (0.5-1.5 days). If you want to argue that far more resources should be devoted to patent examination; that's possible but in EPO countries the balance seems about right -- countries have a hard job arguing for thousands more civil servants to save only a few (!?) court cases. In USPTO you need an overhaul of the court system, massive increase in examining staff I don't think we'll fix it. All just my opinion of course.

AlbertCory 5y ago
> "EPO _granted_ patents? I'm highly doubtful you can do that in the normal search period (0.5-1.5 days)." "In the normal search period" is the key phrase here. If you're granting a government monopoly which is extremely costly to challenge (as the article demonstrates), then you owe us more than a cursory look at the prior art. In any case, this is probably an argument for just making software nearly impossible to patent, even more than the EPO already does. As (I think) Joel Spolsky said, no more than 5 or 6 per year sounds about right.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  Yeah, with product lifetimes and development in general being on a much shorter cycle parents should probably have reduced in term to reflect that.

AlbertCory 5y ago

> "EPO _granted_ patents? I'm highly doubtful you can do that in the normal search period (0.5-1.5 days)." "In the normal search period" is the key phrase here. If you're granting a government monopoly which is extremely costly to challenge (as the article demonstrates), then you owe us more than a cursory look at the prior art. In any case, this is probably an argument for just making software nearly impossible to patent, even more than the EPO already does. As (I think) Joel Spolsky said, no more than 5 or 6 per year sounds about right.

pbhjpbhj 5y ago
Yeah, with product lifetimes and development in general being on a much shorter cycle parents should probably have reduced in term to reflect that.