That alone should _NOT_ be basis for a patent, but I'm sure you agree with me here anyway...;)
You have to understand this... invention comes from a spark of imagination or just simple daydreaming. Maybe something at your work is not done as efficiently as possible. (that right there is an improvement on an existing invention) Patent's don't have to be commercially successful. Patent's just give an inventor the right to his/her invention so that when they start making the thing they have invented they (theorically) don't have to worry about somebody stealing their idea (and potential loss of money).
Improvements an existing ideas is really what makes patents work. It's innovative to look at a process and say I can make this work better and the new process really does. Remember some of the greatest invention we have around the inventors didn't even know how they got the invention or how it works. Think of plastic which was invented totally by accident or how luck played such a massive role in the discovery of penicillin.
How was your previous post a "successful" methodology in any way whatsoever? In so many ways your post shows your ignorance of the current patent system.
first: fix the backlog so that it no longer takes years to grant a patent. Open new patent courts, hire more people, charge more for the patents, whatever it takes.
Checkout the USPTO's webpage and look at the 21st century plan. Better yet, try reading it.
Second: The USPTO needs to be responsible for its output. If a patent is overturned as invalid, court fees and the original cost of filing the patent should come out of its pocket.
Oh... I see, because it's the agency that screwed up... but wait... where did that money that the agency used to pay the court fees come from? hmmm, the "good" patent inventors? Yea, that's it lets let the inventors who filed "good" patents pay for the apps filed by "bad" inventors when a "bad" patent is reversed by the courts. You really thought that out long and hard.
Third: Mandatory implementation
You did know that the patent office used to require a working model right? But stopped that practice once electrical circuits started being patented, oh and they were running out of storage room. But maybe you'd like to donate the space required for it. How about your house, got an extra few million square feet?
"does someone else sell this product already"
Dude.... READ! Get yourself some knowledge before you post. Once again, go to the USPTO's web site and look at the MPEP under 102(b), section 700. Read all you want about public use. You know that examiners do not have the power of discovery like attorneys? Examiner's cannot stop an application from going forward because it is suspected of being in public use or on sale. They must have proof, like someone else who needs proof to make decisions... a jugde! However like I said above, examiner's don't have the power of discovery, but courts do and so adjudication is neccesary.
Slashdot Mirror
This adds more fuel to fire for making reverse engineering illegal.
As the case law grows soon you won't be allowed to figure out how your networked coffee maker works just to make it make coffee!
That alone should _NOT_ be basis for a patent, but I'm sure you agree with me here anyway... ;)
You have to understand this... invention comes from a spark of imagination or just simple daydreaming. Maybe something at your work is not done as efficiently as possible. (that right there is an improvement on an existing invention) Patent's don't have to be commercially successful. Patent's just give an inventor the right to his/her invention so that when they start making the thing they have invented they (theorically) don't have to worry about somebody stealing their idea (and potential loss of money).
Improvements an existing ideas is really what makes patents work. It's innovative to look at a process and say I can make this work better and the new process really does. Remember some of the greatest invention we have around the inventors didn't even know how they got the invention or how it works. Think of plastic which was invented totally by accident or how luck played such a massive role in the discovery of penicillin.
How was your previous post a "successful" methodology in any way whatsoever? In so many ways your post shows your ignorance of the current patent system.
first: fix the backlog so that it no longer takes years to grant a patent. Open new patent courts, hire more people, charge more for the patents, whatever it takes.
Checkout the USPTO's webpage and look at the 21st century plan. Better yet, try reading it.
Second: The USPTO needs to be responsible for its output. If a patent is overturned as invalid, court fees and the original cost of filing the patent should come out of its pocket.
Oh... I see, because it's the agency that screwed up... but wait... where did that money that the agency used to pay the court fees come from? hmmm, the "good" patent inventors? Yea, that's it lets let the inventors who filed "good" patents pay for the apps filed by "bad" inventors when a "bad" patent is reversed by the courts. You really thought that out long and hard.
Third: Mandatory implementation
You did know that the patent office used to require a working model right? But stopped that practice once electrical circuits started being patented, oh and they were running out of storage room. But maybe you'd like to donate the space required for it. How about your house, got an extra few million square feet?
"does someone else sell this product already"
Dude.... READ! Get yourself some knowledge before you post. Once again, go to the USPTO's web site and look at the MPEP under 102(b), section 700. Read all you want about public use. You know that examiners do not have the power of discovery like attorneys? Examiner's cannot stop an application from going forward because it is suspected of being in public use or on sale. They must have proof, like someone else who needs proof to make decisions... a jugde! However like I said above, examiner's don't have the power of discovery, but courts do and so adjudication is neccesary.