--- Terry Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2001, Bob Meyer wrote:
>
> > Because the patent office is full of idiots who
> don't
> > understand technology that's how. But even here,
> it's
> > the specific process that's patented. If a
> competitor
> > could come up with a significantly different way
> of
> > accomplishing the same goal, they could do it.
>
> It depends entirely on how the claims are drafted
> and allowed. You can't
> meaningfully discuss what a patent covers in the
> abstract. You have to
> read and construe the claims of the particular
> patent.
That's true. But over the last 10 years the Patent
Office in the U.S has issued more than one patent
which fails to stand up to the common sense test,
especially in regards to software. The patent office
has a real shortage of people with any understanding
of the software industry and its history (although
it's making efforts to recruit more), and as a result
is woefully unaware of prior art.
The fact that they don't have the in house expertise
to evaluate software patent applications is excusable.
The fact that they accept the patent applicant's
claims without going to experts in the field to try to
verify them is not. The attitude at the PO seems to
be "If someone doesn't like the patent, they can sue."
But that's not the way it's supposed to work.
=====
Bob Meyer
Life is uncertain. Eat dessert first.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
