On 20 May 2010 16:08, silky <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:03 PM, David Connors <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 20 May 2010 15:49, silky <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Agreed that Patent law is "not ideal". But I would expect it's not so >> > trivial to replace or remove, and you don't hear about the good >> > things, so your feelings towards it are almost certainly biased. >> >> I think there is an argument that can be made that there is a very big >> difference between a real invention and say, getting a patent for using XOR >> to overlay a cursor on a GUI (years and years after the industry has been >> using it as standard) then going on to take everyone with a pulse to court. >> I'm surprised more of these don't get over-turned trivially by showing prior >> art. > > I've never been to court for a patent infringement, but I'd imagine > the *process* of showing and proving "prior art" is non-trivially > expensive.
Who has the onus of proof for that? Do you have to prove that there isn't prior art or that there is? > > It's my imagination that "the" patent system (obviously it differs > from country to country, but lets assume it's similar in Australia and > America) relies on courts and "the market" to do the determining of > validity, not so much the office itself. But I could be totally wrong; > I do know (or at least assume) that some validation is done on patents > in this country. I don't know how thorough it is. Have you paid for the paperwork? I'd suspect that's the validation. I'm being cynical. > > >> -- >> David Connors ([email protected]) >> Software Engineer >> Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com >> Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 >> 189 363 >> V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors >> Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact > > -- > silky > > http://www.programmingbranch.com/ > -- Meski "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
