"Storyline" patent application (Zombie Stare) fares poorly at USPTO
On 3 November 2005, IPBiz had a post titled: "Storyline" patent application, The Zombie Stare, to be published by the USPTO. On 27 June 2008, the 271 blog has a post titled A Different Kind of Battle At the USPTO Over 35 U.S.C. 101, which updates the status of Knight's patent application at the USPTO.
Within the post, a quote from the examiner:
Some people are critical of the patent system because there are people who have patents for invention they have no intention of making or using. Examiner will not join in this debate, but will make two observations:
(1) To the extent that this represents a problem, it would be unwise to add to the problem by creating yet another class of intellectual property to be held by those who are not going to make or use their invention.
(2) In defense of the holders of patents for inventions currently patentable, they at least provide an increase in human knowledge upon which others can improve. If A. Lincoln invents a device for lifting boats over shoals, others can improve upon the invention - whether Lincoln builds such a device or not. Thus science and technology advance. Storyline patents, on the other hand, are not amenable to "improvement".
An IPBiz reader wrote:
If Abe Lincoln, an employee of a national lab, patented a device to lift boats over shoals,
nobody would improve the device!
A) they owe the gov. a license fee.
B) the barrier to innovation may well be too small, someone else will make another patent, so your "investment" to manufacture and sell would be gone.
C) And I promise, there are thousands of patents for fusion energy....but the patents will long expire, before anyone builds the first tokomak, stellerator, or torus. These patents are like tritium....they all have a short half life.
If you asked me, the US gov should not be issued patents!!!
Within the post, a quote from the examiner:
Some people are critical of the patent system because there are people who have patents for invention they have no intention of making or using. Examiner will not join in this debate, but will make two observations:
(1) To the extent that this represents a problem, it would be unwise to add to the problem by creating yet another class of intellectual property to be held by those who are not going to make or use their invention.
(2) In defense of the holders of patents for inventions currently patentable, they at least provide an increase in human knowledge upon which others can improve. If A. Lincoln invents a device for lifting boats over shoals, others can improve upon the invention - whether Lincoln builds such a device or not. Thus science and technology advance. Storyline patents, on the other hand, are not amenable to "improvement".
An IPBiz reader wrote:
If Abe Lincoln, an employee of a national lab, patented a device to lift boats over shoals,
nobody would improve the device!
A) they owe the gov. a license fee.
B) the barrier to innovation may well be too small, someone else will make another patent, so your "investment" to manufacture and sell would be gone.
C) And I promise, there are thousands of patents for fusion energy....but the patents will long expire, before anyone builds the first tokomak, stellerator, or torus. These patents are like tritium....they all have a short half life.
If you asked me, the US gov should not be issued patents!!!
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 10:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home