Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Harmonious Botch's Journal: How patents should work

The following is an attempt to improve the patent process by adding competition to it. It is essentially a public test of non-obviousness.

A patent application should be composed of two documents. The first document should say what the invention does. The second document should say how it does it ( or in some cases how the manufacturer made it ). Both documents would be submitted privately to the patent office at the same time.

The patent office would then do a brief examination to sort out the dumb stuff ( like perpetual motion ) and the duplicates and infringements of existing patents in much the same way that it currently does. This might involve several rejections and resubmissions. When the application passes, then the patent office releases the first part to the public.

There would be a standard period of time between the release of the first part and the issuance of the patent. During that period, if someone else can show how it is done, then the application is denied and all documents become public domain - both of the applicant's documents, and the second person's explanation.
If nobody else can show how the patent idea could be done within that time, the idea is judged to be really non-obvious and the patent is issued, and the second part is thereby made public.

The exact period of time would vary depending on the field of research. For a software patent, a month should suffice. For medicines, a year or two might be better.
This discussion was created by Harmonious Botch (921977) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How patents should work

Comments Filter:

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Working...