Submission + - Patents law vs. the laws of physics
t0mek writes: Patent law demands the people to defy the laws of physics. Can an inventor or small company be held responsible for not doing the impossible?
USPTO granted 247,713 patents in 2011 alone. Assuming a full-time job (240 working days and 8 hours a day) this equates to 129 patents per hour. It's physically impossible to read read the monopoly rights granted to patent holders at that rate. Even if that was possible it's still impossible to analyse and understand the selected patents that my be related to the line of business. The court cases show that examining the true meaning, depth and breadth of a single patent can take months or years. There are far more "possibly relevant" patents granted than 1 in "months or years".
It's physically impossible to keep up with the current rate of patent granting. Can anyone be held responsible for not defying the laws of physics? Would that be a sufficient defence line in case of any patent litigation?
Analogy: can a person be sues and found guilty of trespassing if:
1. The forbidden area is not clearly marked, but only described in broad and fuzzy terms,
2, There were millions of forbidden areas and
3. New forbidden areas were added in form of a complex, multi-page descriptions at the rate of 130 per hour?
USPTO granted 247,713 patents in 2011 alone. Assuming a full-time job (240 working days and 8 hours a day) this equates to 129 patents per hour. It's physically impossible to read read the monopoly rights granted to patent holders at that rate. Even if that was possible it's still impossible to analyse and understand the selected patents that my be related to the line of business. The court cases show that examining the true meaning, depth and breadth of a single patent can take months or years. There are far more "possibly relevant" patents granted than 1 in "months or years".
It's physically impossible to keep up with the current rate of patent granting. Can anyone be held responsible for not defying the laws of physics? Would that be a sufficient defence line in case of any patent litigation?
Analogy: can a person be sues and found guilty of trespassing if:
1. The forbidden area is not clearly marked, but only described in broad and fuzzy terms,
2, There were millions of forbidden areas and
3. New forbidden areas were added in form of a complex, multi-page descriptions at the rate of 130 per hour?
