On 09/19/2012 11:44 AM, Robert Dorr wrote: > > > Craig, > > I noticed several times in the cat patent, they mention "invisible > light". That's interesting, possibly an invalid patent, or possibly, > one could patent one, using "visible light". > > Bob
I'm sure you've seen this. You take a laser pointer and point the light spot near a cat, and he'll jump at it. You can then move the light spot around the room, and he'll run and jump at it indefinitely. I was pointing out the absurdity of patenting something so simple. There's no original work here; likely the fellow who patented it, had seen it somewhere else. And there's no way to enforce this patent. The patent owner doesn't own the right to laser pointers; only the process of using a laser pointer to excite a cat. Since we were talking about what 'should' be patentable, I was throwing my opinion into the mix, that patents should protect labor, as should all property rights. Without the labor involved in the creation process, there shouldn't be anything to patent, and with the labor, then it shouldn't matter if it works. Notice that if the object created, has to be 'useful', then patents are very limited when used in R&D. If you are working on a multi-step process and try to patent step 1, when step 1 isn't useful in any other type of process, then the patent may fail that test. Craig
