unique visitor counter

Our patent office

  • Category :
  • technology
  • July 24th, 2008

    Patentlyo reported that the patent office has developed a position against patenting against processes and algorithm.  The wording was that it must “tie to a particular machine” or otherwise it is not patentable.

    What the patent office refuse to accept is using a description of a general purpose machine (i.e.  a device capable of obtaining an imagine and transmitting data to a remote server), a common practice to enlarge the claim coverings.  It has to be a particular one, like a particular crisplant.

    This would nullify patents like one click or buy it now.  What the patent office failed to recognized is a lot of productivity gains (or lost) we enjoyed today comes from process engineering.  The general purpose machine already exist.  It is the process that’s revolutionary.  On the other hand, I think the damaged rewarded to these patents should be limited.  If the patent is not implemented, it should be limited to 10 times the implementation cost.  If it was, 100 times actual revenue lost, or half of profit gain by the infringer.  So that way it won’t limit someone with a ability to take something to market from doing so.

    Consumer will have more choices.  If the invention was not implemented, either the cost is too high or the inventor did not believe there is a market.  He will be properly paid either case if someone took it to market.  If the invention was implemented, and someone can do a better job at scaling it, the inventor is rewarded accordingly with royalty.

    Setting a limit would encourage faster settlement for suits, thus speed up how some of these case get processes and put back the focus on rewarding those with ideas.

    Entry Filed under: technology

    Leave a Comment


    Required, hidden

    Check Spelling
    Activate Spell Check while Typing

    Some HTML allowed:
    <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

    Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


    July 2020
    M T W T F S S
    « Aug    

    Most Recent Posts