[OT] Re: Geoworks and their patent

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

> The problem is that lately, the USPTO seems to be awarding patents that
> cover *all* possible means of achieving a particular outcome rather than
> specific implementations.  Merely thinking up a desirable result doesn't
> provide much to build on.  As someone once put it, it's like getting a
> patent on the broad concept of mechanically trapping mice rather than on
> the design of a particular mousetrap.
> 
The key to understanding the current situation is the observation that one
can patent nearly anything if it meets certain formal requirements (which
for the USPTO is increasingly too a free-for-all to include not just algorithms,
natural laws, natural life forms but such things as business models). The patent
offices--- and this is not restricted to the USPTO---  have elected given "a
complexity of the material" to "...let the courts decide". In many ways the USPTO
have just taken the logical step to declare itself ill-suited to judge the
difference between a business plan, a machine or an animal. Given the (potentially
quite high) costs of a patent suit this has effectively flip-floped the original
motivations of patents. 

-- 
______________________
<A HREF="whois://rs.internic.net/ecz">Edward C. Zimmermann</A>
<A HREF="http://www.bsn.com/">Basis Systeme netzwerk/Munich</A>
Cellular: +49 (179) 205-0539


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Unsubscribe by posting to majordom at ic.ac.uk the message
unsubscribe xml-dev  (or)
unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email at your-subscribed-address

Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.