[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The patent process [Was Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending]

From: AES/newspost
Subject: Re: The patent process [Was Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending]
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 08:26:48 -0700
User-agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC)

In article <>,
 Just Another Alias <> wrote:

> AES/newspost <> wrote:
> > It only *takes away* rights from *others* that these others 
> >would have had, had the patent not been granted
> But think this through to the next stage.  Because the opportunity
> exists for a temporary monopoly, the patent process CAUSES things to
> be invented that would not have been invented.  Therefore, your poor
> hypothetical person who is denied the "right" to practice the
> invention of others would not have had that right without a patent
> system, because the invention very well may not have been invented in
> the first place.
> What gives you or anyone the "right" to enjoy the creations of others?

I don't believe that, in all too large large majority of cases, patent 
protection plays much or any role in causing things to be invented.  

I believe a more accurate description is that in a large majority of 
cases a technically competent person or engineering group is presented 
with a need or a technical problem or a product opportunity of some sort 
and, using their technical skills, they solve the problem in essentially 
the same fashion as would any other comparably competent group of 
professionals faced with the same problem later on -- and then patent 
the solution.

Evidence for this is the widespread reaction to many patents among 
technically competent people -- note: "technically competent people" 
meaning informed and practicing professionals in the field of the 
invention, not patent professionals -- that, "Hey, that's trivial", or 
"It's obvious", or "It's been done before" or similar.

Where this is the case -- and I'm asserting it's all to often the case 
-- the patent system just operates to protect someone who does something 
obvious or ordinary (to a competent professional) but just happens to do 
it *first* (and has a patent department behind him) -- and that's not 
the intention of Art. I, Sect. 8, and does not "promote progress".

In my opinion and experience, the number of practicing professionals who 
copy ideas from issued patents is very limited in part because the 
number of practicing professionals who even *read* patents for 
information (as contrasted to reading technical journals or attending 
professional meetings) is limited.  They may read patents to see what 
legal hassles they're likely to encounter, or to get a handle on what 
the competition is up to, but not to learn things -- in part because 
many patents are so undescriptive, unclear, poorly written, or 
incomplete that they're useless for this purpose (and deliberately so, 
in many cases).

> Create your own stuff.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]