Javascript and Microsoft Windows

[Stephen Kellett]

Apparently I know more about this process than both of you. Its a good thing
that truth is not a democracy, otherwise mediocrity would rule!

If you were correct I could patent faster than light travel without
having a proof of concept. There are plenty of bogus USA patents that
have been granted. Looks like yours is one of them if you haven't got a
working proof. I seem to remember a story on Slashdot a while back about
someone getting a US patent on something as similarly ridiculous as
faster than light travel.

Having filed for patents myself (both UK and USA) we had to be able to
demonstrate the working concept, which of course wasn't for faster than
light travel.

Stephen

 

[RobG]

Actually, it isn't and any patents *without* prototypes are considered
"pending" by most offices until demonstrated. I am aware that in the USA
they have made a practice of allowing such patent claims and this has
led to a disaster in patent law there... which is why so many nations
are in patent dispute with the US.

It is interesting to note that over 350,000 patents are filed each year
with the US Patent Office (Microsoft alone filed over 3,000 in 2005,
I'll bet IBM filed a similar number). It is absurd of anyone to think
that the fact that a patent is granted means that the "invention" is
therefore guaranteed to actually be patentable - there is absolutely no
way that the US Patent Office has the time or resources to thoroughly
vet each and every application. That task is left to others who wish
to challenge the patent.

The purpose of filing patents is now a defensive business practice -
note IBM's reaction to the SCO case. They immediately returned fire by
accusing SCO of breaching a bunch of IBM patents, for no other reason
than to make SCO spend a fortune defending themselves and reduce the
funds available for their case against IBM (I am not supporting SCO's
case here, just pointing out a recent use of patents as a defensive
strategy).

 

[Peter Olcott]

Actually, it isn't and any patents *without* prototypes are considered
"pending" by most offices until demonstrated. I am aware that in the USA
they have made a practice of allowing such patent claims and this has
led to a disaster in patent law there... which is why so many nations
are in patent dispute with the US.

I forgot that the rest of the world might handle patents differently than in the
United States. I see no reason why the United States model would not work
without problems. If it is later demonstrated that an idea will not work, then a
patent would be of no value.

 

[Peter Olcott]

If you were correct I could patent faster than light travel without having a
proof of concept. There are plenty of bogus USA patents that have been
granted. Looks like yours is one of them if you haven't got a working proof. I
seem to remember a story on Slashdot a while back about someone getting a US
patent on something as similarly ridiculous as faster than light travel.

I forgot that I sent in one example of a working prototype when I filed my
patent. I have read that this is not required in the United States. The specific
legal term is [constructive reduction to practice]. This term means that filing
a patent is considered legally the same as building a prototype.

 

[Stephen Kellett]

I forgot that the rest of the world might handle patents differently
than in the
United States. I see no reason why the United States model would not work
without problems. If it is later demonstrated that an idea will not
work, then a
patent would be of no value.

In which case you have not thought about the problems in much depth.

Stephen

 

[Peter Olcott]

In which case you have not thought about the problems in much depth.

Well its far better than the alternative first-to-file, making it far easier for
big corporations to steal the ideas of individual inventors. Although
first-to-invent might be more difficult to administer, it is a much more
equitable system. Because of this I would not trust the rest of the world's
judgement against the United States on patent matters. The requirement of
providing a working prototype is yet another bias towards big business over the
individual.

 

[The Magpie]

I forgot that the rest of the world might handle patents differently than in the
United States. I see no reason why the United States model would not work
without problems. If it is later demonstrated that an idea will not work, then a
patent would be of no value.

Unfortunately, both you and the US Patent Office are quite wrong. Almost
the entire planet has problems with the shambles that the US patent
process has become.

 

[Peter Olcott]

Unfortunately, both you and the US Patent Office are quite wrong. Almost
the entire planet has problems with the shambles that the US patent
process has become.

Can you be more specific?

 

[The Magpie]

Can you be more specific?

How can I possibly need to? Your country is involved in patent disputes
over pharmaceuticals with Brazil and India, for software with the entire
EU, China and Japan, with the entire planet (through the WHO) over
ludicrous claims for "genetic patents" (particularly for BRCA breast
cancer tests) and many, many more. American patents are an international
farce.

 

[Peter Olcott]

How can I possibly need to? Your country is involved in patent disputes
over pharmaceuticals with Brazil and India, for software with the entire
EU, China and Japan, with the entire planet (through the WHO) over
ludicrous claims for "genetic patents" (particularly for BRCA breast
cancer tests) and many, many more. American patents are an international
farce.

With {first to invent} all that it takes to resolve these disputes is to prove
who was the first to invent. {first to file} makes it far too easy for big
corporations to steal the work of individual inventors.