>From: "Roger" To: <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: [Amps] SELL: Heat Dissipating 8877 HV Plate Caps
>Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 04:33:18 -0400
>OTOH our patent office has granted some pretty stupid
>patents partucularly pertaining to software and combining ideas into new
I would argue that software should really come under Copyright Law as it is
not something which can be developed into a physical object.
But I do agree that many patent submissions are pretty stupid and without
any technical or scientific merits - they could never achieve what is stated
in the "Claims" section of the patent let alone be translated into a viable
product. Also it is not the job of the Patent office to technically verify
that the "Claims" are true as part of the Patent process. Antenna Patents
are a particularly good example of this. It always makes me chuckle when
advertisers infer that because their product is Patented that it has been
endorsed as being a good product.
Many inventors and companies simply submit applications for any ideas which
are hatched up. Most never develop into anything. The main thing is to
register the idea and have the rights assigned to you or your company. In
the UK a Patent application is a two stage process, the cost of the initial
submission is free - you only pay at the second stage when the full patent
application is submitted, and it's at that stage that the Patent office do
the seaches to see if the invention has already been patented, or if
something has been published. Then if the Patent is granted you have an
escallating fee every year over the life of the patent to keep it current.
However, IMHO there are many patents granted which strictly speaking are
"discoveries". A Patent should only apply to an "invention". There is a
world of difference between the two.
Got a favourite clothes shop, bar or restaurant? Share your local knowledge
Amps mailing list