4 ms·
... and how you judge if the patent office is doing it's job, again? If you're not "happy with the outcomes", which direction do you push the fence? Without a g
by hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
... and how you judge if the patent office is doing it's job, again? If you're not "happy with the outcomes", which direction do you push the fence? Without a goal set we get nowhere.
What patent law should achieve is purposefully vague - it's the ultimate subversion of the legal system for capitalistic purposes. The state is supposed to give exclusive rights over "ideas", in effect granting the monopoly of anything to anyone. Then the patent office is handed over the hair ball of defining what are "ideas", which ideas are worth a patent (aka "trivial inventions", as if such thing exists), or even which ideas are original (a joke in itself).
In my mind, we're asking the patent office to solve a philosophical problem, in the hopes they will sort out a logical conundrum caused by a vague law.
- Fargren 14y agoIn theory, you are right. The question we ask the patent office is eminently philosophical and unsolvable. In practice, however, that's not important. What important is the economical function the patent office has. Which is, to use granted monopolies on order to incentivice inventions. It's fine if they give us a faulty answer the the philosophical conundrum we've charged them with, as long as the faulty answer furthers this purpose. That's a more measurable stick we can use. And I think by that stick, they are currently doing a much worse job than they could.