Slashdot Mirror
PTO Requests Working Model of Warp Drive
aborchers writes "According to Patently-O: Patent Law Blog, the PTO has requested a working model of a Warp Drive for which a patent was recently applied. From the article, "Among other rejections, the Examiner has asserted a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility -- finding that the invention is inoperable." At least one examiner is paying attention!"
.... that way we won't get harrassed with frivolous lawsuits when it becomes a reality 20 years + down the road.
Essay: A Violent Protest Against Patents
Here's a dumb question from a non-lawyer: how long do patents last? Forever? I ask because if a patent only lasts 15 or 50 or 100 years or whatever, what sense does it make to patent something - even if it's essentially just an idea - if your protection is likely to expire before you take anything to market?
A-Bomb
Well, it's nice to see that at least someone applied some brain before passing a patent. Unfortunately, it's not always so easy.
My guess is that normally, the patent clercs simply shake their heads, say "don't understand it, but since they wanna patent it, it's prolly working" and pass it. In this case, though, at least "warp drives" are so well known to be science fiction and far from a working model, that it rang someone's alarm bell.
I wonder, though, if a quantum singularty drive would have been shot down as well. It's not really common knowledge anymore that those don't work (yet) either. Worse yet, they won't be used in Federation starships.
I really sometimes wonder what kind of approval course a patent has to go before becoming patent. Does anyone who has a clue take a look at all?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Just what I was thinking -- I'd really like to see the PTO require working models of all "inventions" submitted for patent, and while I'm as pleased to see this frivolous application rejected as I would be any other, I can't help be a bit bothered by the double standard involved. "Silly, unworkable, sci-fi-inspired idea probably filed as a joke? Forget it, pal. Silly, unworkable, b-school-inspired idea layered in suit-speak? No problem!"
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
hi - at my company, we hold a lot of patents. In fact, there's a program in which people at the company can submit patent ideas and our legal department checks them out and sees if they exist/are viable/etc. I submitted one last year (that already existed - damn) and while speaking with one of the lawyers he mentioned, quite empatically, that whatever is being patented does not actually have to exist. According to him, you can patent a process or software or hardware that has no working proof of concept. I think the idea of submitting a patent on something that can never exist is pretty lame, but on the other hand, I don't think that people should be allowed to call dibs on patents just so they can wait for somebody else to do the work and then sue them. It's tough to find a same medium. how close is too close (or too far) from the realization of an idea for it to be patented?
calling all destroyers