Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

patent absurdity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • patent absurdity

    Now we are patenting biological facts. Check this press release: http://www.pubpat.org/LabCorp_Position_Statement.htm

    I have been of the opinion for some time now that the USPTO lost it's path, but this plummets to a new depth. I don't even think they bother to examine the applications anymore. They allow patents on genetics, overly broad definitions of "business methods", obvious inventions for which prior art clearly exists (see the Sony playstation injunction issued the other day - there is exactly one method that is "obvious to one versed in the art" to make a vibrator and that is what Immersion v Sony is based on), and now this. How do you feel about patenting anything you see? Or patent warfare as is now being practised in the US courts?

  • #2
    Far too many idiotic patents are filed. In computer science and electronics engineering, for example, stuff gets patents filed -- and accepted -- that clearly depend entire on what is known as prior art. They are indeed weapons, both for competitive threats, and during negotiation. The threat side is obvious; the negotiation side happens when 2 companies are trying to make a joint venture, and each side brings in it's stack of worthless patents. The general tenor of the discussion is that of an indecent comparison of the proportions of each side's patent portfolio, as they jockey for position trying to determine who is negotiating from a position of strength.

    I've read through the patent files for a number of these things, and they absolutely suck rocks.

    I once engaged an upper level manager at a former business associate in a conversation about the validity of these patent arsewipes. (That's all they're good for.) I observed that many of the "meaningful" patents couldn't survive a challenge, if it came to court. He conceded that was true, but said it didn't matter, because who could possibly go to the trouble to do that?

    And the competitive nuisance! It's such garbage. And it sometimes becomes competitive blackmail over an illegitimate patent.

    LSN

    Comment


    • #3
      I think its terrible that lifeforms can be patented especially.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by HawkLord
        I think its terrible that lifeforms can be patented especially.
        Yes, take for example Monsanto's roundup resistant strains of common food crops, which are highly invasive, and tend to pollute the crops of organic farmers, who are then forced out of business by litigation costs when they are "discovered" to be in violation of Monsanto's licensing.

        Comment

        Working...
        X