4 ms·

What's painfully pedestrian to the proficient can be profoundly esoteric to the uninitiated.

• spacemanaki 14y ago
  But it's not about whether it's esoteric to the uninitiated, right? Rejecting patents over obviousness is about obviousness to someone proficient in the field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_in_the_art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_in...
  • _delirium 14y ago
    It's a bit tricky, though, because typically it's people who are not skilled in the art who must decide whether it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art. Of course, if it goes to trial they can have expert witness testimony and attempt to build a clearer understanding of its (non-)obviousness, but ultimately the question doesn't get decided by a panel of experts skilled in the art.
    • bunderbunder 14y ago
      And both sides can usually readily find an expert witness to argue their side of the case. Unfortunately, deciding which one's got the plausible story and which one is just blowing smoke and mirrors might be something that only an expert is competent to do. Judges and juries, maybe not so much.