I am not stating my opinion. I am stating a fact. If the patent description does not enable one skilled in the art to make it... it will fall in court. Period. A good number of patent examiner's, however, are idiots. That is why in order to enforce a patent you have to litigate it (a place where the other side has the opportunity to find errors in the examination). There will always be some unpatentable disclosures that slip through the cracks because of idiot patent examiners. Such patents are worthless.
What the "faster than light" examiner was supposed to do was rejected the patent for being inoperable because it "disobeyed known scientific principles." The patentee would then have to prove that the scientific priniciple is either wrong or provide a working model to the patent office to prove operability. In this manner, the examine would also reject it for not enabling one skilled in the art to make or use the invention. Hope this clears it up.
Working as a patent agent at a top IP law firm, I am probably biased. Nonetheless, I will provide you with your answer.
People that patent their ideas have made a working model of their invention in a way. In order for a patent, your application has to "enable one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made" to build and operate the invention. You can't patent ideas. You can't say "i want to patent an antigravity device." However, if you come up with a way to make an antigravity device you have to disclose how to make one. If you do not disclose how to make it then the patent will not be valid because 1) it will not be an enabling disclosure; and 2) you will not have described the best mode.
Now, we want people to patent things. Patents are one of the reasons why technology is blooming. Before the patent system was utilized, companies would keep ideas secret as... trade secrets. Now, they are utilizing the patent system in which the government gives them a 20 year limited monopoly (i.e., the reason why there will never be an antitrust issue because of a patent, just business practices) in exchange for the public disclosure of how to make and use the invention.
Those are the facts.
Jeff
Slashdot Mirror
I am not stating my opinion. I am stating a fact. If the patent description does not enable one skilled in the art to make it ... it will fall in court. Period. A good number of patent examiner's, however, are idiots. That is why in order to enforce a patent you have to litigate it (a place where the other side has the opportunity to find errors in the examination). There will always be some unpatentable disclosures that slip through the cracks because of idiot patent examiners. Such patents are worthless.
What the "faster than light" examiner was supposed to do was rejected the patent for being inoperable because it "disobeyed known scientific principles." The patentee would then have to prove that the scientific priniciple is either wrong or provide a working model to the patent office to prove operability. In this manner, the examine would also reject it for not enabling one skilled in the art to make or use the invention. Hope this clears it up.
Working as a patent agent at a top IP law firm, I am probably biased. Nonetheless, I will provide you with your answer. People that patent their ideas have made a working model of their invention in a way. In order for a patent, your application has to "enable one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made" to build and operate the invention. You can't patent ideas. You can't say "i want to patent an antigravity device." However, if you come up with a way to make an antigravity device you have to disclose how to make one. If you do not disclose how to make it then the patent will not be valid because 1) it will not be an enabling disclosure; and 2) you will not have described the best mode. Now, we want people to patent things. Patents are one of the reasons why technology is blooming. Before the patent system was utilized, companies would keep ideas secret as ... trade secrets. Now, they are utilizing the patent system in which the government gives them a 20 year limited monopoly (i.e., the reason why there will never be an antitrust issue because of a patent, just business practices) in exchange for the public disclosure of how to make and use the invention.
Those are the facts.
Jeff