🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Feb27.003406.10211@ico.isc.com>, Dick Dunn (dd) writes:

dd> Patent law does acknowledge the concepts of prior art and obvious
dd> ideas-- but only in principle.  That is, in principle you cannot
dd> patent something someone's already doing, nor can you patent an
dd> idea which would be obvious to a practitioner in your field (there
dd> will no doubt be at least ten followups quoting the exact legal
dd> phrasing for me, so I won't try).  But in practice there *have*
dd> been patents granted for obvious techniques and/or techniques with
dd> ample prior art.  (I DO NOT know whether the AT&T patent involved
dd> in the current flap fits this description.)

Ok, here's an idea we came up with yesterday while chatting about this
fiasco. 

It should be made cheap (or free) to chalenge a patent on the grounds
of prior art/obviousness. Lets say that anyone walking in to the
patent office with a half way plausible case (eg affidavits from half
a dozen qualified practitioners in the field) that a patent is invalid
should be able to demand a review by people who know what they are
doing, that is to say a peer review, not a legal wrangle. If they
loose they have to pay the cost of the review (probably hundreds not
hundreds of thousands of [insert relevant currency]). If they win the
patent is squashed and the holder has to pay. In either case the
stakes are low enough that patents loose their fear factor.

Of course someone has to say what counts as a qualified professional
and a peer for the reviews, but there are professional bodies which
seem to fit the bill (ACM/BCS).

--
rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk	Have you proted something from a Mac today?