3 ms·

I think the last paragraph there is self-contradictory. Simple things shouldn't be patentable, precisely because the invention doesn't need to be fully disclose

by deong 13y ago

I think the last paragraph there is self-contradictory. Simple things shouldn't be patentable, precisely because the invention doesn't need to be fully disclosed. To take a silly example, let's say I propose a patent on the process of painting a house green. That's the entire text of the patent. Should it be granted? No. In part because I haven't fully disclosed the invention. But what could I possibly add? "Step 1. Cover house with green paint." A government granted monopoly is a big gun. Far too big if the goal is just to provide you with revenue. Government works for the people, not one company, and if we're going to give you the right to exclusively profit from something, we demand to get something in return. The thing we demand is knowledge. We want to know how you did it so that after your monopoly expires, everyone can benefit from the increase in knowledge. If your "invention" is so simple that we all already know how to do it, then we don't need the "full disclosure" of a patent, and we don't need to buy your description of painting the house green for the enormous cost of having to pay you exhorbitant fees for every green house for the next two decades.

axman6 13y ago
Firstly, your example is so ridiculous I can't see how it adds anything to the discussion. No, it would never be granted a patent, so what exactly is your point? Secondly, you have accurately described the patent system; > if we're going to give you the right to exclusively profit from something, we demand to get something in return. The thing we demand is knowledge. We want to know how you did it so that after your monopoly expires, everyone can benefit from the increase in knowledge. But you go off the rails when you confuse simple and known. The point of a patent is to disclose the invention in a clear enough way for someone else to be ablwe to perform it. Once you know the answer, it probably will seem simple. But that does not mean it's not inventive (ie, no one else has done it before, and you qwere the first to have made that knowledge available to the public).
- deong 13y ago
  I'm not confusing simple and known; I'm just including both in the decision as to whether something is eligible for patent protection. As the patent office is required to do (the term used in patent law is "non-obvious" rather than simple, but it's the same concept). You aren't eligible for a patent just because you did something first.
  - axman6 13y ago
    Simple is not the same as non-obvious, so no, it's not the term used in patent law. Something is obvious if a non-inventive person skilled in the art _would_ have performed it through routine steps (at least here, some of the mosaics I see coming from the US are batshit insane and no sane person would have used them to come to same result the examiners is claiming - that said, this is a practice that is in favour of the public, it requires the applicant to reduce the scope of the claims further which leads to smaller monopolies).

by deong 13y ago

axman6 13y ago

Firstly, your example is so ridiculous I can't see how it adds anything to the discussion. No, it would never be granted a patent, so what exactly is your point? Secondly, you have accurately described the patent system; > if we're going to give you the right to exclusively profit from something, we demand to get something in return. The thing we demand is knowledge. We want to know how you did it so that after your monopoly expires, everyone can benefit from the increase in knowledge. But you go off the rails when you confuse simple and known. The point of a patent is to disclose the invention in a clear enough way for someone else to be ablwe to perform it. Once you know the answer, it probably will seem simple. But that does not mean it's not inventive (ie, no one else has done it before, and you qwere the first to have made that knowledge available to the public).

deong 13y ago
I'm not confusing simple and known; I'm just including both in the decision as to whether something is eligible for patent protection. As the patent office is required to do (the term used in patent law is "non-obvious" rather than simple, but it's the same concept). You aren't eligible for a patent just because you did something first.
- axman6 13y ago
  Simple is not the same as non-obvious, so no, it's not the term used in patent law. Something is obvious if a non-inventive person skilled in the art _would_ have performed it through routine steps (at least here, some of the mosaics I see coming from the US are batshit insane and no sane person would have used them to come to same result the examiners is claiming - that said, this is a practice that is in favour of the public, it requires the applicant to reduce the scope of the claims further which leads to smaller monopolies).