4 ms·
ok, IANAL and I'm not even a patent amateur, but I'm not an idiot and making my way logically through the idealized process, this is what I see: Now you've hea
by Shinkei 13y ago
ok, IANAL and I'm not even a patent amateur, but I'm not an idiot and making my way logically through the idealized process, this is what I see:
Now you've heard the old adage that invention is 1% inspiration, right? Well that's the problem with our patent system. With these 'idea' patents, you simply have to have enough money to pay a patent lawyer to submit the application and it's suddenly a patent. Meanwhile, you have not produced a product, maybe you can't, maybe you never intended to! Edison would roll over in his grave if he could see the charlatan inventors all over America proclaiming patents of things as silly as this--skipping to specific audio tracks is as intuitive as having bookmarks in a book. I'm not saying the method itself is not creative or novel--I am really not in a position to judge as patents are inexplicably incomprehensible. (I mean the first diagram on that patent is ridiculous, did they really have to sketch the CPU?)
Invention is about the 99% perspiration. If you can't produce the product or convince someone else to make it into something useful, you don't deserve a patent.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoEdison wasn't above a bit of patent charlatanry himself on occaision, so he might just find it amusing. Though I may just patent making Edison spin in his grave as a means of providing power. I'm sure I can get the patent office to grant it.
- Pxtl 13y agohttp://dresdencodak.com/2010/06/03/dark-science-01/ http://dresdencodak.com/2010/06/03/dark-science-01/
- moocowduckquack 13y agoDamn. Prior Art.
- dTal 13y agoAlso: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2429 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2429
- everydayman 13y ago> you simply have to have enough money to pay a patent lawyer to submit the application and it's suddenly a patent the idea that patents are handed out like candy is utter rubbish. Try it sometime. > Edison would roll over in his grave Edison was by today's definition a patent troll himself. That definition has basically come down to anyone who dares sue someone over a patent.
- beagle3 13y ago> the idea that patents are handed out like candy is utter rubbish. Try it sometime. Patents are not handed out like candy, but that's mostly because most patent submissions are still done by people who honestly think there's still some merit to the patent system. Those who try to game it are, in fact, handed patents like candy: A patent examiner has ~8 hours to examine a patent over its life, and rarely looks at prior art that was not listed in the patent. Said patent examiner is rarely an expert in the field of the patent. With this situation, a patent examiner can mostly check the coherence of the application, not its novelty or obviousness - so as long as you (or your patent editor) can write a coherent, term-obfuscated, long enough document, and are willing to persist through resubmission after the first rejection, you'll get your patent. And the patent people (editor, legal, tech) like it that way.
- everydayman 13y ago> Examiner rarely looks at prior art that was not listed in the patent wrong - they perform diligent prior art search - and believe it or not ARE experts at that.
- beagle3 13y agoHaving received several patents myself, I can assure you this is not the case. "Dilligent prior art search" in an area they are not experts in requires days. Last I checked (in 2011, I think), the average time spent by an examiner on a patent, from submission to grant (or refusal with no redress) is 8 hours. Regardless of how good they are at finding prior art, that's not enough time to be "diligent". I'm basing my statements on the real life experience of my self, colleagues and patent attorney. What are you basing your statement on?