This is better than nothing, but doesn't address the core issue. This is technically how the USPTO should already be working; replace #2 with 'file for a patent at the USPTO' and #1 with 'publish it someplace'. Nevertheless, a more official framework to store unvalidated ideas is probably a good idea. Many of the nebulous "Isn't everybody in breach of those" patents are technically legal, and the idea of asking the community to contribute prior art is nice but pointless, as you can already invalidate any patent on the spot by showing prior art (i.e. you can do so at any point in time, it's not a "Speak now or forever hold your peace" kind of deal), and patents involved in court cases are already pretty public. In that sense we already have a community review system in place and it doesn't seem to be helping much.
So, what I'm missing here is a way for the community to say: Okay, prior art specific enough to get this tossed out is kind of hard to find, but it's definitely not novel and please please don't grant this stupid patent; anybody who will be in breach of it is overwhelmingly likely to have come up with the idea by themselves (the crux of what it means to not be novel). Specifically I'm missing the laws that define how community input is shaped into a 'yes, novel' and 'no, this is stupid' decision, which is what we really need. On Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:42:52 AM UTC+2, KWright wrote: > > > > On 11 August 2011 03:38, Robert Casto <[email protected]> wrote: > >> And who can compete harder than a company full of money and people? With >> those kinds of resources, they are sure to beat you to the punch and there >> will be nothing to stop them from beating you to a releasable product. In >> order to be first, you will have to release a trash version first and then >> polish it later. >> >> There doesn't seem to be a winning hand here. The patent office has >> already started us down this road and it doesn't appear that we can >> backtrack or take another path. All our options seem equally bad. >> >> > Make patents a two-phase process. > > 1. File the thing, in most cases the USPTO will accept it as written > > 2. Validate it. For an additional (fixed) fee, the USPTO will investigate > the patent fully. This will be the full investigation that everybody would > like to see done in the first place. I'd also like to see a website listing > all patents currently under such investigation, and inviting evidence of > prior art. > > > All presently existing patents should be considered as filed, but not > validated. No patents could be used in a lawsuit or to collect fees until > validation has been performed. > > There should be a grace period in which current licence arrangements > continue, so long as the relevant patents are immediately submitted for > validation and pending the result of this. If a patent is found to be > invalid, then all licence arrangements are rendered void. > > > Under such a system, anyone using a validated patent can be far more > confident of success. I imagine lawyers would then be far more willing to > take cases on a no-win-no-fee basis, making such action financially viable > for even solo inventors taking on large corporate sharks. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/vcSj10CSq8AJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
