|
 |
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> In the European patenting system the principle is that ideas and methods
>>> cannot be patented, only real devices. I think it was like that in the US
>>> as well, a century ago, but it gradually changed.
>
>> Not particularly. The patents cover computers doing certain things.
>
> That's my point: Here ideas and ways of doing things (algorithms) cannot
> be patented. Only real, physical devices (with working prototypes) can be
> patented (at least in principle).
Certainly. I understand what you're saying. I'm saying that people get
around it by patenting "a computing device that computes XYZ using process
PDQ." That's the "design of the device."
It *might* be possible to word thing in a way that makes it impossible to
patent something that can be run on a COTS computer, perhaps, but I don't
see any good way of doing that offhand.
I've also seen patents where they give a mechanical device that does what
you want to patent without even any electricity, and then add "by the way,
it might be possible to build the same machine using computer parts, and the
patent should cover that too." I don't know how you'd avoid such a patent
without also making useless patents on things like a new kind of drug that
gets cooked up in a certain way. You cook it in a round pot, I cook it in a
square pot, so I'm not violating your patent?
> You don't patent what the device *does*,
> you patent the design of the device itself.
So you have no patents on drugs, or on processes for making drugs, or
methods for curing rubber or hardening steel? No patents on constructing
radial tires? On more efficient ways to manufacture paper? Or anti-lock
brakes, or collision preparation systems, which are all computerized and
wouldn't work but for the computer components?
Could you have patented an ink-jet printer in such a way that nobody else
could make an ink-jet printer? Surely the shape of the case or the color of
the ink can't be a determining factor. Can you patent putting a chip in a
cartridge to prevent its refilling?
I'm just saying I think it's a grey area, with a broad range of things that
can be interpreted widely that really shouldn't be, and if you try to
legislate that down, you're going to have trouble with things most people
think should make sense to patent.
> In the US you can get patents for completely ridiculous things.
Agreed. For one thing, the patent examiners are apparently greatly
overworked. Who wants to have both a law degree and an engineering degree,
and work for a government salary?
> If you want the *device* itself patented, check patents 6505576, 6557495,
> 6651591 and 6701872 (all of which patent basically the same thing, even
> though that should be impossible).
The other problem with a lot of patents is they're not "enabling". This
means they don't tell you how to build the actual device. Look at, for
example, the patent on the Segway scooter. It basically says "We patent any
device with two wheels on one axel where the rider's center of weight is
above the wheels." There's no discussion about *how* you make it work.
There's nothing in the patent that you couldn't learn by watching someone
ride a Segway for five seconds. There's no "this is the secret we're
revealing in return for the monopoly on manufacturing this" in the patent.
Another one I saw was a mechanism for making phone calls. The whole thing
was three black boxes: A computer, a device to hook the computer to the
phone, and the phone. It read like a requirements spec, rather than a
finished device. *That* is a bad patent and it *should* be thrown out. I.e.,
in theory that patent is already invalid, not just "the law should be
changed to make it invalid."
Unfortunately, the "loser pays until he wins" crapshoot combined with the
"when in doubt, grant the patent and let the courts fight it out", tend to
be the real problem.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
