4 ms·
2) were first to invent, not first to file; The bar for not being obvious should be high enough for this to not make a difference. If two people (or teams, com
by tbrownaw 13y ago
2) were first to invent, not first to file;
The bar for not being obvious should be high enough for this to not make a difference. If two people (or teams, companies, whatever) independently invent the same thing within... say, a year of eachother, that should be taken as proof that it's too obvious to be patentable.
- thaumasiotes 13y agoThe logic here is fairly appalling; look at Newton vs Leibniz.
- Dylan16807 13y agoWhat do you feel about the idea that math had developed to the point that such a calculus was now incremental and immediately inevitable? Though patents are rather specific and coming at a problem from two different directions can easily lead to two valid patents. Wait, what am I talking about, you can't patent math period.
- thaumasiotes 13y agoI think my most basic problem with that idea is this: I think that, if some process is patentable, then no matter how you divide it into components, at least one of those components should be patentable too. > you can't patent math period Of course, but I'm just responding to the idea that if two people independently develop something at the same time, it was obvious by definition. That isn't true.
- Dylan16807 13y agoIf two people develop something at the same time then a patent on that thing probably wasn't needed to promote progress. There will be individual cases where it's not true but an overall rule of 'no' is probably going to work better than a rule of 'yes', especially since a 'yes' can only go to one of those inventors.
- thaumasiotes 13y agoI'm not here to defend the system. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the concept of patents generally and particularly as applied to drug development, but all I'm really going for here is > There will be individual cases where it's not true I feel like we agree. Side note as to drug development: if we assume patents are a way to subsidize research into an area felt to be socially beneficial, it shouldn't be too surprising when multiple people go for (relatively) low-hanging, or particularly desirable, fruit, and sometimes get there simultaneously. But in that model we still needed the subsidy to get out of the system state where zero people were doing such research. It doesn't necessarily make sense to turn around and say that we're going to take away patents when too many people discover the same thing at once -- if the patent system was necessary to get the research done at all, scrapping it will scrap the research too. Refusing to grant patents out of obviousness isn't the same concept as refusing to grant them in an effort to avoid wasteful research effort collisions.
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoNewton? Seriously? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_gi...
- coldpie 13y agoYou're right, the world would be a far better place if Calculus required a licensing fee. I know that wasn't your point, but seriously the idea of "intellectual property" is so galling I can't believe anyone accepts it.
- atom-morgan 13y agoIf anyone disagress with coldpie, I'd recommend reading "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella. I used to be in favor of IP laws until I read that book.
- lotsofmangos 13y agoI tend to think of it as imaginary property.
- rayiner 13y agoThis isn't a perfect rule, see below about Newton and Liebniz, but I think this is the closest it comes to a good rule of thumb for patent. Independent invention should create a strong presumption of obviousness.