3 ms·

That would help, of course, but what about the situation where A works hard to solve a difficult problem and puts out a product, only to find out later that B h

by gruseom 15y ago

That would help, of course, but what about the situation where A works hard to solve a difficult problem and puts out a product, only to find out later that B had already patented that solution? If A's work was independent of B's, why should B own it? Especially in the egregious and common subcase where B never actually produced anything other than a patent.

stcredzero 14y ago
I'd argue that what you propose is covered by a sane approach to "obviousness."
- willvarfar 14y ago
  So you can defeat a patent by claiming you invented it independently later? ... how would that work?
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    You'd have to prove that you did formulate it independently yourself. There couldn't be other prior art. If your own inventor's journal revealed a large amount of work, that would show the original patent was indeed valid. If you could prove that you did invent it yourself, and that it wasn't that big a deal, the patent should fall. So to win in your case, you'd have to tread a tightrope between "not enough evidence to show independent origin" and "the thing is obviously substantive enough to warrant a patent." Most likely, the thing actually is obvious and there would be other prior art, which the Patent Office currently doesn't pay attention to.
- Locke1689 14y ago
  It's not. Consider the calculus: invented almost simultaneously by two brilliant mathematicians (Leibniz and Netwon). For a more recent example, consider NP completeness, proved completely independently by Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin. Or even reinventions made disparate by time: the Cooley-Tukey FFT was first formulated by Gauss in 1805. If these inventions are "obvious," then all inventions are obvious. The truth, not widely acknowledged, is that most inventions are as much a product of the environment of the inventor as the inventor themselves. They're not smarter and they're not unique. Patents should not prohibit coincidental parallel invention, only reverse engineering.
  - gruseom 14y ago
    Patents should not prohibit coincidental parallel invention, only reverse engineering. Well put. That's exactly the intuition I was trying to express.

by gruseom 15y ago

stcredzero 14y ago

I'd argue that what you propose is covered by a sane approach to "obviousness."

willvarfar 14y ago
So you can defeat a patent by claiming you invented it independently later? ... how would that work?
- stcredzero 14y ago
  You'd have to prove that you did formulate it independently yourself. There couldn't be other prior art. If your own inventor's journal revealed a large amount of work, that would show the original patent was indeed valid. If you could prove that you did invent it yourself, and that it wasn't that big a deal, the patent should fall. So to win in your case, you'd have to tread a tightrope between "not enough evidence to show independent origin" and "the thing is obviously substantive enough to warrant a patent." Most likely, the thing actually is obvious and there would be other prior art, which the Patent Office currently doesn't pay attention to.
Locke1689 14y ago
It's not. Consider the calculus: invented almost simultaneously by two brilliant mathematicians (Leibniz and Netwon). For a more recent example, consider NP completeness, proved completely independently by Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin. Or even reinventions made disparate by time: the Cooley-Tukey FFT was first formulated by Gauss in 1805. If these inventions are "obvious," then all inventions are obvious. The truth, not widely acknowledged, is that most inventions are as much a product of the environment of the inventor as the inventor themselves. They're not smarter and they're not unique. Patents should not prohibit coincidental parallel invention, only reverse engineering.
- gruseom 14y ago
  Patents should not prohibit coincidental parallel invention, only reverse engineering. Well put. That's exactly the intuition I was trying to express.