Pueblo Native wrote:
Chris Bonde wrote:
I am not sure about what you said about Prior art. When I was working
in a
patent department for a company prior art is anything in the public
domain,
including patents. Most of the US patent examiners cite older patents as
prior art then say your application is not new and novel. Then you
have to
argue that there is a difference. If you keep an idea as a Trade Secret,
you may suffer from it being patented. The idea of granting a letters
patent was to give a person certain rights to the idea if the person
disclosed the idea to expert workers in the field.
Actually, the constitutional language said "To promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries; " (Article I, Section 8)
But I agree, the courts have taken a overly broad view of the word
"limited". "forever less a day" is limited as well, but I don't think
that was the meaning.
It is looking like the courts are now starting to turn the tables back
on the abuse of the patent system.
Putting limits on what is a patent and what is innovation.
Long patent/copyright times limit innovation and this is proven in a
recent article I read (I thought I had the link) on patent laws in India.
Drug companies are upset that they cannot patent minor drug changes in
India. The Indian government stipulates that it has to be a major
innovation in order to be granted a patent. Innovation does not come
from making minor changes to protect your market.
Hopefully the recent supreme court ruling will put some fear into
companies and their patent portfolios.
I also think that it is wrong that MS won't reveal the patent
infringements to the public.
--
Due to the move to M$ Exchange Server,
anything that is a priority, please phone.
Robin Laing
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
