3 ms·

There will never be an end to this bullshit. If the patent system sought to promote innovation, rather than stiffle it, we'd stop using "first to file" and mov

by yarg 4y ago

There will never be an end to this bullshit. If the patent system sought to promote innovation, rather than stiffle it, we'd stop using "first to file" and move to "all to independently derive". Yes, independent derivation may still end up in court - but there's at least reasonable standards of evidence either way.

gorgoiler 4y ago
Are you saying that anyone who independently derived the mechanism — before the first machine was made public or the patent diagrams were published — should also be granted the patent? Once your rival has manufactured and sold their sausage making machine you can take it apart to see how it works. Perhaps you just claim you’ve never done this?
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  > Are you saying that anyone who independently derived the mechanism — before the first machine was made public or the patent diagrams were published — should also be granted the patent? You seem incredulous that a "first to invent" system could work, but US moved away from that system less than a decade ago. Edit: Never mind the first post was about independent derivations. That's not the same thing. My mistake.
- yarg 4y ago
  Do I need to quote myself? I said things will still end up in court - and the end-product in the example that you're giving will be too similar to the patented invention to stand up in court.
MereInterest 4y ago
Even better, "none to independently derive". Patents must be non-obvious. I would take independent invention as evidence that the patent should never have been granted in the first place.
- yarg 4y ago
  They must be non-obvious to an expert in the field. In theory that's a strictly tighter constraint than non-obvious, although it's impossible to actually implement. However, independent invention isn't necessarily a proof that the particular patent should not have been granted. Often, it is not the solution but its problem space that's obvious. There tends to be a finite domain of reasonable solutions, and solutions converge to that domain. In which case you probably want some sort of thicket busting legislation.

by yarg 4y ago

gorgoiler 4y ago

Are you saying that anyone who independently derived the mechanism — before the first machine was made public or the patent diagrams were published — should also be granted the patent? Once your rival has manufactured and sold their sausage making machine you can take it apart to see how it works. Perhaps you just claim you’ve never done this?

CogitoCogito 4y ago
> Are you saying that anyone who independently derived the mechanism — before the first machine was made public or the patent diagrams were published — should also be granted the patent? You seem incredulous that a "first to invent" system could work, but US moved away from that system less than a decade ago. Edit: Never mind the first post was about independent derivations. That's not the same thing. My mistake.
yarg 4y ago
Do I need to quote myself? I said things will still end up in court - and the end-product in the example that you're giving will be too similar to the patented invention to stand up in court.

MereInterest 4y ago

Even better, "none to independently derive". Patents must be non-obvious. I would take independent invention as evidence that the patent should never have been granted in the first place.

yarg 4y ago
They must be non-obvious to an expert in the field. In theory that's a strictly tighter constraint than non-obvious, although it's impossible to actually implement. However, independent invention isn't necessarily a proof that the particular patent should not have been granted. Often, it is not the solution but its problem space that's obvious. There tends to be a finite domain of reasonable solutions, and solutions converge to that domain. In which case you probably want some sort of thicket busting legislation.