SCOTUS Set To Examine Combinatory Patents

eldavojohn writes "The Washington Post is reporting that businesses are split on the current situation with patents in the United States. From the article: 'The court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday on what's obvious when older inventions are combined to create something new. The law says an invention that's "obvious" isn't patentable, but the definition isn't clear despite decades of litigation. The ambiguity, critics say, has led to an explosion of patents as companies stake claims on everything in sight, from strategies for avoiding taxes to golf ball designs. The result has been extensive and costly legal wrangling as companies of all sizes fight over who's infringing what. In some cases, small companies acquire patents not to develop new products but to sue for a quick windfall.' This sounds like some common criticism of the patent system that often pops up on Slashdot. The last part of the article mentions that most legal experts are expecting some changes to come of this. Hopefully soon we'll see some changes to the patent system for a better concept of intellectual property."

Comments

Jury of their peers

[Baldrson]

"Obviousness" can be decided in a trial if the jury is made up of peers of the inventor -- those skilled in the art by some reasonable criteria.

The main problem with the obviousness standard

[rollingcalf]

Currently the burden of proof is on the USPTO to show that something is obvious, rather than being on the applicant to show that it is nonobvious. Shift the burden to the applicant, and that will go a long way to solving the patent mess.

When a patent is being applied for, the applicant is claiming that they invented something that others would be unlikely to figure out independently. Making such an assertion should require strong evidence and persuasive arguments to go with it.

Obviousness will always be a grey area, but for everything to be considered nonobvious by default is ridiculous.

I would go as far as saying that patents should be restricted to those things that are obviously nonobvious. If there is doubt as to its obviousness, don't grant the patent. It is better for 10 well-deserving patent applications to get rejected than for one undeserving one to get approved. Those with rejected patents can still produce whatever they developed without the patent; but when an undeserving patent is granted it prevents everybody else from producing the covered items, without requiring the grantee to produce it themselves.