Colin Sharpe wrote: > --- James Knott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> jonathon wrote: >> >>> James Knott wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> For example, to prove it's not based on prior >>>> >> art, you'd have to know >> >>>> *ALL* prior art. >>>> >>>> >>> That is a trivial issue. >>> >>> >>> >> Really? So, how would one know about all prior >> art? >> > > Not so. Having worked with patents (And even been > awarded a few), the way it works is: > > The inventor writes up a patent and a patent attorney > files the patent. A search is done to see if the new > patent attempts to patent something already patented. > If it doesn't a patent is granted. >
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember somewhere that the patent was drawn up by the attorney, not the inventor. Somebody said because that is the case, even if an inventor did search all patents, they are written in such a legalistic fashion that it doesn't provide the person searching any clues as to what that patent is about. There are also a couple of other reasons to kill off the patent system. While I have heard the excuse of "ignorance of the facts" (as opposed to ignorance of the law), this is the first law where ignorance is actually encouraged. the reason for this is that if you, as a patent inventor, can prove the other party actually had knowledge of that patent, you can recover treble damages. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
