Let's hope they get the Patent-patent and lock it away forever. People believing that there is only 1 inventor of an idea don't know shit about history. It's very very rare for 1 person to come up with something really unique. Patents, especially on obvious things like math (software) or a 1 click-to-buy (amazon) aren't a big problem today for the average citizen, but it won't be long before those lobbies will get a law that will also let them target the end-users. Mark my words. Patents as they are impleme
My prof was talking about patents and using them as a resource for generating new ideas. The original intent of patents. He had to warn us though because companies will file multiple patents that vary slightly, but in the end don't work. They are there to hide the actual patent. Talk about side stepping the whole concept of why patents exist and is contributing to the backlog.
He had to warn us though because companies will file multiple patents that vary slightly, but in the end don't work. They are there to hide the actual patent.
Alas your professor must not know much about how patents work. There are several problems with this theory. First, filing multiple applications on slight variations is a good way to end up with an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Basically, non-identical applications must also be 'patentably distinct.'
The number of rejections is also at a record level. The Office is simply operating more efficiently after a couple of years of mismanagement. The rate of allowance is still somewhat low, historically-speaking.
The US Patent Office get its funding from patent applications fees. [jsonline.com]
So the question is: WHAT THE #UcK DID YOU EXPECT!
He had to warn us though because companies will file multiple patents that vary slightly, but in the end don't work. They are there to hide the actual patent.
Alas your professor must not know much about how patents work. There are several problems with this theory. First, filing multiple applications on slight variations is a good way to end up with an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Basically, non-identical applications must also be 'patentably distinct.'
Second, the inventors and the patent
The number of rejections is also at a record level. The Office is simply operating more efficiently after a couple of years of mismanagement. The rate of allowance is still somewhat low, historically-speaking.