4 ms·
Were it not for prior art, I'm sure the design for a bridge could be patented. And then someone would invent a truss bridge, a covered bridge, an arch bridge, a
by chancho 17y ago
Were it not for prior art, I'm sure the design for a bridge could be patented. And then someone would invent a truss bridge, a covered bridge, an arch bridge, a cable stayed bridge, etc. each getting a patent because each improves on the state of the art. You can patent just about any physical implement. The reason "obvious" stuff (physical equivalents of OneClick) are not patentable is due to prior art dating back to the stone age. Now computers have opened up a land rush on pure mathematics, which used to not be patentable but now is through clever wording. IMO this needs to be resolved by legislation (whichever way you come down on the debate.) The existing patent framework is just not designed for it. So bringing it up before the supreme court is a good step forward.
- tsally 17y agoThe design for an implementation of a bridge, not for all bridges. Most software patents try to patent all bridges.
- prodigal_erik 17y ago"Land rush on pure mathematics" is exactly right. They're being allowed to essentially claim the entire problem, rather than a specific solution which happens to be better than well-known alternatives the industry is still free to use.
- zaphar 17y agoWhat's interesting about what you just stated is that the only reason current patents don't stifle innovation is that there is enough unpatented prior art that someone can build a bridge. If someone did patent a simple bridge as stated above no one could build a truss bridge cause it would infringe. It would in effect stifle innovation. Patents only work when in old industries?