On 11 August 2011 20:18, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > Agreed in principle... The problems start if you then follow through on the impact of changes to the way the USPTO does its reviews. Specifically: - How will a more thorough process be funded? - What does it mean for pre-existing patents, from before the changes were made? I guess that these were the main concerns I was specifically seeking to address > 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. > -- Kevin Wright mail: [email protected] gtalk / msn : [email protected] quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright google+: http://gplus.to/thecoda <[email protected]> twitter: @thecoda vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright steam: kev_lee_wright "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. 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.
