3 ms·
> Exactly what it is: a government protected idea untested by the courts. If its still untested, it should be assumed invalid. I don't see what's wrong with tha
by alienasa 11y ago
> Exactly what it is: a government protected idea untested by the courts. If its still untested, it should be assumed invalid. I don't see what's wrong with that.
On that assumption, why bother having the USPTO at all? If something "untested by the courts" is invalid, you're effectively appealing to the court as the arbiter of all innovation.
However, the court system is not equipped to be evaluating innovation claims, either in terms of time or expertise. I suspect the outcome would be worse.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago>why bother having the USPTO at all? Because 18th century economic theory dictated a patent process because back then information moved so slowly it was easy to copy a design and market it as your own with consumers unaware that it was a copy. How this remotely connects to software in the information age is beyond me. I don't see a need for the USPTO at all, outside of trademark protection.
- Retric 11y agoIt's a barrier to entry. Even if the court assumes the patent is invalid without the USPTO it would be easy to bring unlimited trivial nuisance suits with a clear incentive for 3rd party's to settle. It also acts as a clear timestamp. The USPTO patent being assumed invalid is simply to avoid spamming patents until something gets though.