'Patently Ridiculous' - What's Wrong With The PTO
PhxBlue writes "The St. Petersburg (FL) Times wrote an editorial this morning lambasting a patent system which allows patents for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and swinging sideways. It has some background on how the patent system became as FUBARed as it is, citing rulings by the Supreme Court in 1980 and by the federal patent appeals court in 1998; but more importantly, it brings the faults with the US patent process to a more public eye."
The US patent system as it stands today is a system by which innovations are registered by the government with little or no background check. These innovation registrations are then challenged in court by those with competing interests. The problem with this system is that during the registration process it is assumed that the courts will check the validity of the patent, and during the court process it is assumed the patent office checked its validity. It takes a large deal of financial backing to challenge a patent in court, and a relatively small amount of money to obtain a patent. Thus, it is financially advantageous to file BS patents, and equally advantageous to settle with those companies who wield them.
I'm glad to see another site reporting on the issue, but I fail to see how this has changed since 1989.
The ______ Agenda
The US Patent Office has a page on "What can be Patented"
Some interesting excerpts for those to lazy to click through:
"...any person who 'invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,' subject to the conditions and requirements of the law."
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful."
"... patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc..."