6 ms·
They should bring this back, if only to force applicants to actually prove they have the capacity to create the thing they’re patenting.
by nolongerthere 3y ago
They should bring this back, if only to force applicants to actually prove they have the capacity to create the thing they’re patenting.
- garbagewoman 3y agoThey didn’t actually have to work
- dmd 3y agoThat makes no sense, and unfairly gives preference to huge corporations. If I can invent some new machine that will cost many millions of dollars to build, should I not be able to patent it?
- ecshafer 3y agoNot until you build it, no. You didn't invent anything, you thought of something. But until it exists you didn't invent it, as you have no proof it works. Edison went through a 100 different light bulbs before he had one that works, should he have gotten the patent for "a glass ball that uses a heated filament to make light" before he figured out all of the hard parts?
- fnordpiglet 3y agoFor my patent on streaming distributed cryptographic ratchet hashes would I just submit a model of a server rack?
- nolongerthere 3y agoIf we still want to allow software to be patentable you’d submit the code.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoMy experience submitting software patents is you need to provide enough textual description that the assessor can plausibly understand how it would be implemented. That means no “magic goes here” sections. The models submitted prior weren’t fully functional. They were a demonstration of what something would plausibly look like to give the assessor enough context to plausibly understand how you would build it. That means no “magic goes here” devices.