Lighten up. It's a single sentence written by someone that clearly isn't well versed in patent law.
I think its safe to assume the claims in their patent applications will not be for "an idea." More than likely, their claims will recite a method of treating cancer.
If a tree falls in the woods, and no one cares...
on
The Death of Privacy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There's no money in it because consumers don't care.
But apparently there is money in writing columns discussing stuff that most people don't really care about.
Yeah, technically you are right. Even an abandoned invention by another is supposed to serve as valid prior art.
But from a practical standpoint, you can have a tough time proving that you invented first. People tend to throw out paperwork and other forms of proof, especially when they relate to a project they don't think they'll ever touch again. By the time some 3rd-party patent holder comes onto the scene, it may be years or decades later. By then, it may be impossible to prove that someone else invented first.
There are quite a few countries that have compulsory licensing of patent rights, and the systems don't do a very good job of getting people to spend money on R&D. The whole point of a patent is to give the holder a limited monopoly. Once you start making exceptions, it guts the whole point of the patent system. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it would just be more efficient to eliminate the patent system as a whole rather than implement a compulsory licensing charade.
A bill that would switch to a first-to-file system is always pending in Congress. The real question is whether it could ever get passed.
Don't hold your breath.
Well if they are published in peer review papers, then those journal articles are prior art at least since the date of publication.
And keep in mind that you yourself are a member of the public. So the inventions have been "known to the public" since the date you conceived of them. Unless someone can prove that you abandoned the invention, that 3rd party can not validly secure patent rights on them. (Of course they may get an application allowed, but they'll never be able to enforce it against anyone that knows about your prior invention)
Well, I don't know what you mean by "academic priority", but you certainly should research the issue more before you go file a bunch of patent applications.
If you've used the algorithms in software products already, they are part of the prior art and probably can't be patented by anyone (including you). Even if you can still secure patent rights on the algorithms, it may be more expensive than it is worth since no one else can enforce a patent right on the algoriths against you anyway (unless they managed to invent before you did).
Either way, a couple hundred dollars worth of consultations with a patent attorney may save you tens of thousands of dollars in application costs.
The original poster is talking about the difference between civil law countries and common law countries. In common law countries, the courts create common law that is every bit as binding as legislative law. In civil law countries, the courts are only supposed to enforce the laws of the legislature and are not supposed to formulate their own laws.
The US is a common law country, while most of the EU are based on the civil law system.
You are basically arguing that the SCOTUS should lower the bar on obviousness to make the Examiner's job easier. Not a particularily strong argument, IMHO.
A solution in search of a problem
on
Public Patents?
·
· Score: 1
You don't have to patent something for it to become part of the public domain. Just publish your ideas anywhere, and they become part of the prior art pool.
You need to learn a lot more about the patent system before you start suggesting policy changes. You're like a blind surgeon.
Slashdot Mirror
Lighten up. It's a single sentence written by someone that clearly isn't well versed in patent law. I think its safe to assume the claims in their patent applications will not be for "an idea." More than likely, their claims will recite a method of treating cancer.
There's no money in it because consumers don't care. But apparently there is money in writing columns discussing stuff that most people don't really care about.
But from a practical standpoint, you can have a tough time proving that you invented first. People tend to throw out paperwork and other forms of proof, especially when they relate to a project they don't think they'll ever touch again. By the time some 3rd-party patent holder comes onto the scene, it may be years or decades later. By then, it may be impossible to prove that someone else invented first.
There are quite a few countries that have compulsory licensing of patent rights, and the systems don't do a very good job of getting people to spend money on R&D. The whole point of a patent is to give the holder a limited monopoly. Once you start making exceptions, it guts the whole point of the patent system. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it would just be more efficient to eliminate the patent system as a whole rather than implement a compulsory licensing charade.
A bill that would switch to a first-to-file system is always pending in Congress. The real question is whether it could ever get passed. Don't hold your breath.
Well if they are published in peer review papers, then those journal articles are prior art at least since the date of publication. And keep in mind that you yourself are a member of the public. So the inventions have been "known to the public" since the date you conceived of them. Unless someone can prove that you abandoned the invention, that 3rd party can not validly secure patent rights on them. (Of course they may get an application allowed, but they'll never be able to enforce it against anyone that knows about your prior invention)
Well, I don't know what you mean by "academic priority", but you certainly should research the issue more before you go file a bunch of patent applications. If you've used the algorithms in software products already, they are part of the prior art and probably can't be patented by anyone (including you). Even if you can still secure patent rights on the algorithms, it may be more expensive than it is worth since no one else can enforce a patent right on the algoriths against you anyway (unless they managed to invent before you did). Either way, a couple hundred dollars worth of consultations with a patent attorney may save you tens of thousands of dollars in application costs.
The original poster is talking about the difference between civil law countries and common law countries. In common law countries, the courts create common law that is every bit as binding as legislative law. In civil law countries, the courts are only supposed to enforce the laws of the legislature and are not supposed to formulate their own laws. The US is a common law country, while most of the EU are based on the civil law system.
You are over-reacting. If you invented the algorithms first, it is unlikley that anyone else is going to be able to get a valid patent covering them.
I largely agree.
You are basically arguing that the SCOTUS should lower the bar on obviousness to make the Examiner's job easier. Not a particularily strong argument, IMHO.
You don't have to patent something for it to become part of the public domain. Just publish your ideas anywhere, and they become part of the prior art pool. You need to learn a lot more about the patent system before you start suggesting policy changes. You're like a blind surgeon.
I've been following this case for quite a while now, and the summary posted above isn't even close to being accurate.
I guess they take Mondays off.