4 ms·
To quote robomartin (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4275361 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4275361): "I am not against patents. I am against the grant
by bjornsing 14y ago
To quote robomartin (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4275361 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4275361): "I am not against patents. I am against the granting of patents for non-inventions."
The main problem IMHO is the cultural definition of "obviousness" among patent examiners. They seem to think
a) that (in practice) all meaningful prior art is patented so all they have to do to find it is search their patent databases and
b) the slightest difference between prior art and a new "invention" makes the "invention" non-obvious.
IMHO prior art should be whatever you can find in library and (more importantly) on the Internet. The test should be that the difference is non-obvious "to a person skilled in the art", i.e. the inventive step itself has to be non-obvious.
- patrickmay 14y agoExactly. If it can be proven that an alleged infringer actually came up with the same idea independently, that should demonstrate that the idea is not non-obvious and therefore the patent is invalid.
- stcredzero 14y agoFrom the patent examiner AMA on reddit, and from comments that patent law professionals have made here, it seems that those involved with patents are a bit out of touch with the reality for software professionals. The patent database is a tool, it's not reality. The way that patents are written and treated is also out of touch with reality.