So long Steve ..

[Tony Hardie-Bick]

On 07/10/11 13:50, James Coplin wrote:
> It actually isn’t funny at all.  The law states that an idea existing in a prior
> work of art as to form or function is a valid reason to overturn an “idea” as
> patent.  Patents were meant to protect a physical invention, not process or
> idea.  Patenting an idea is just bullshit.

Patentability is supposed to require that the invention be "non-obvious to those 
skilled in the art" (as well as original). If these criteria were actually 
tested reasonably, much of the problem would go away, but the practice of 
patenting is very different from theory.

It's still a good defense for the small as well as the large. But woefully 
imperfect and somewhat dysfunctional, and prone to furthering the interests of 
multinationals in an unbalanced way.

Tony (HB)