🚀 go-pugleaf

In the referenced article, mjohnsto@admin8780.shearson.com 
(Mike Johnston) writes:
> waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com (Mike Waters) writes:
>    Frankly I fail to see why getting paid for original work is so upsetting
>    to some people.
> 
> This is not a flame. I agree that original work should be rewarded but there
> are some things that are so fundamental to an industry that patents should
> not be allowed. As an extreme example let's say you are a car manufacturer
> and want to get an edge on your competitors. A quick check with your
> legal office reveals VOILA! the *wheel* was NEVER patented!!!!! Naturally,
> if you are the anti-competitive sort you'll run right down to the patent
> office and put a lock on it and immediately begin to demand royalties from
> anyone who uses a wheel in their product.
>
> Extreme? Yes, [...]

And completely impossible as well.  One of the statutory requirements
of patentability is that the invention be "nonobvious".  A technique
(or device or application of a substance, etc.) that would be known to
a competent practitioner in the field is not patentable.  The work must
be an original departure from prior art; the demonstration of the
existence of wheels for a significant period of history would make
patenting the wheel or similar devices impossible.

Things that are "fundamental" to an industry are, in fact, almost never
patentable, unless the particular device or technique actually founded
the industry (e.g., synthetic rubber).

On the other hand, many specific instances of wheels are patented,
because they offered some unique improvement to wheel technology.

The above is quite basic to patent law; I would recommend perusing at
least an introduction to patents and patent law before attempting
meaningful commentary on the issue.

--
Michael C. Berch
mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb