Scientific American On Bad Patents

dltallan writes: "Scientific American has a short article in which Gregory Aharonian presents his picks for the four worst patents granted. I like the patent for training with manuals (1998)." The Bustpatents site is worth spending some eye-rubbing time on.

Comments

Re:Suggested Guidelines for Patent Application

[rhekman]

Physical patents require working model

Models used to be a requirement until the Patent Act of 1870, which left it up to the Patent Office commissioner. Space and time constraints really don't allow the luxury of model examination and storage by the PTO. ( Patent Office History ).

Add to your list better cataloging and indexing of patent documentation, advanced electronic search and cross referencing of patent files, and better paid, more experienced patent examiners.

Regards

You thought those were bad.

[Marcus Brody]

Check these patents:

Silly patents

Really silly patents

Really Very silly patent

Plain absurd patent

Even law firms admit many patents are silly

Are you getting bored of all this silliness yet?

I can go on

And on

And on. Even in Spanish

Incidentlly, I have just made my own patent application:
Method of recieving Karma Points from www.slashdot.org utilising process of relying entirely on external sources and/or hyperlinks - "Karma Whoring".

Somebody beat you to it

[BenjyD]

Sorry, somebody already patented that one in Australia last year: here. Is crazy, no?

What not go European ?

[MosesJones]

These patents that only get granted in the US don't happen in Europe. Certainly in the UK this is because other people can challenge the acceptance of a patent, and the people investigating it put it out to experts in that field.

Sounds all to simple, but why not just switch to a system that has worked elsewhere.

Wrong

[ProfBooty]

I am a patent examiner. Youcan use nearly ANYTHING for prior art. I've used google to find webpages that discuss a video game's features which was similar to something I was examining.

You generally start off with searching what is allready in a numberof patent databases, if youdon't find it there thenyou look elsewhere within the limited time alloted.

Re:Suggested Guidelines for Patent Application

[hoggy]

I don't know much about the US Patent Office, but the UK one has pretty sensible guidelines (from www.patent.gov.uk):

To be patentable your invention must:

* Be new

The invention must never have been made public in any way, anywhere in the world, before the date on which an application for a patent is filed.

* Involve an inventive step

An invention involves an inventive step if, when compared with what is already known, it would not be obvious to someone with a good knowledge and experience of the subject.

* Be capable of industrial application

An invention must be capable of being made or used in some kind of industry. This means that the invention must take the practical form of an apparatus or device, a product such as some new material or substance or an industrial process or method of operation.

"Industry" is meant in its broadest sense as anything distinct from purely intellectual or aesthetic activity. It does not necessarily imply the use of a machine or the manufacture of an article. Agriculture is included.

Articles or processes alleged to operate in a manner clearly contrary to well-established physical laws, such as perpetual motion machines, are regarded as not having industrial application.

* Not be "excluded"

An invention is not patentable if it is:

* a discovery;
* a scientific theory or mathematical method;
* an aesthetic creation such as a literary, dramatic or artistic work;
* a scheme or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business;
* the presentation of information, or a computer program.

Also, again I don't know the situation in the states, but from the moment a patent has been filed - note: not granted - it is open to the public to examine. In fact a popular science programme on television here (Tomorrow's World) used to (may still) have a section called "Patent Pending" where they showcased interesting applications.

We seem to have far fewer stupid patents here. Although cross-border agreements to honour patents (largely driven by the US) are breaking down national legislation on this.

Pointing out a potential misunderstanding

[yerricde]

If you don't do anything with a patent, then (a) it's officially invalid

Technically, that's correct; patents expire after 3 1/2, 7 1/2, and 11 1/2 years after grant unless the holder pays periodic maintenance fees. If you don't do anything, not even pay the maintenance fee, the patent becomes invalid.

However, most people would take this to mean "an unenforced patent becomes worthless." That's not patents; that's trademarks.

(b) you're depriving society of technology which they would otherwise have had, for no good reason

No good reason except your own bottom line. For any for-profit corporation, that's reason enough. (Corporations that claim to have ethics do so in order to build goodwill, that is, the value of their trademarks, and that can be measured in dollars.)