It's a terrible patenting example because of that. I don't get why people think that there wasn't something new here. But if you could build a fan out of potato chips in such a way that it was still edible, you would have a patentable invention because it does something new. If you found a way to make a fan that blows air out of potato chips, in principle that would not be patentable, because you just "stuck together" two existing things fans and potato chips. But if you stuck two common things together in such a way that the result does something new, then you have a patentable invention. It's still just a can opener on one end, and a crowbar on the other. The point made by the court in OP's post is that it was not an invention because it was just two common things, stuck together.Ī can opener welded to a crowbar is not patentable, because it doesn't do anything new or in a novel way. That is to say, it has to be or do something completely new. Not only must a patent be non-obvious to someone in the relevant field, and not only must there not be "prior art" (someone else already doing something too similar) it must also be an actual invention. The one-click patent, for example, should never have been awarded because it did nothing new. Complexity has little to do with the subject under discussion. Maybe, but - though I hate to put it this way - it's really not that simple. And the issues are so specialized that the average judge would have to train several years in the particular field to understand what the invention is about." The language is extremely formalized and very hard to read for untrained minds. ![]() Lawyers today make sure that a patent is minimum 50 pages, and some run to more than 1000. ![]() "Back then, a patent had one or two pages and described a (mostly mechanical) issue in simple language.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |