On 2008-09-25, Matt <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2008-09-24, Hadron <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Matt <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr Flocke: "50% of the applications are made by only 3% of the applicants"
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | Half of the patent applications are filed by only 3% of the
>>>>> applicants. Which | means that at least half of the patent
>>>>> applications are filed by large | corporations. `----
>>>>>
>>>>> http://stopsoftwarepatents.org/forum/t-91524/dr-flocke:50-of-the-applications-are-made-by-only-3-of-the-applicants
>>>>
>>>> One thing to consider about patents is that they should be granted
>>>> only for the nonobvious. The applicant should have to show somehow
>>> How do YOU judge what is "non obvious". If things were so obvious then
>>> surely it would have been done before? Most of the great inventions are
>>> relatively simple things.
>>
>> That's pretty trivial really. You just have no imagination.
>
>
> It's almost obvious. :-)
>
>
>>
>> Give the spec to a small team of practitioners. If you want to be
>> really mean, give it to a small team of APPRENTICE practicioners and
>> see if they can replicate the "invention".
>>
>> Anything the "build team" does would be added to the body of prior
>> art and count as stuff that's excluded from future patents.
>
>
> Taking parts of your idea and brainstorming a little ... trying to
> engineer a system to weed out obvious inventions ...
>
> Grant the patent but make the duration of the patent proportional to the
> time it takes a team to replicate the invention. That would make
> patents for obvious inventions run out very soon.
[deletia]
> Teams could self-organize from a large pool of apprentices/interns
> nominated or even paid by industry. A company could only sponsor
Let competitors and other interested parties freely participate
by making the "details" of the patent secret during the test period.
If the patent stands up to the trial period then it gets fully granted.
This could let any company scuttle the patent by just spending
a little time on it. This would allow companies to look out for their
own interests and try to avoid the sort of damages and inconvenience
that might be caused by a bogus patent.
Let the effected parties fend for themselves. Harness the greed
and selfishness of the market. Take advantage of human nature and
capitalism (to mediate itself).
> interns to work outside the company's domain. so they wouldn't work on
> the inventions of the company or its competitors. Put a limit on
> interns' salaries and educational levels and time in the pool, to ensure
> that they wouldn't be experts and make many nonobvious inventions.
>
>
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
--
Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
who has pirated their music / | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
