RIM releases BlackBerry workaround design

TalkBack 12 of 58:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

A lesson on Patents....

The primary idea behind patent law is to encourage the development of new and unique inventions that required some spark of inventiveness, beyond the obvious to those working in the field, by rewarding them with a limited form of monopoly over their invention for a limited period of time.
There is a real problem with patent offices awarding patents to so called inventions that have no current use or application and the patent office therefore finds the invention to be unique as its currently no where in use. The problem arises when someone who comes up with the technology or device to actually put such a patented invention to use, and then lo and behold, we find out the invention that was previously patented is not only obvious to those working in the field, its exactly what anyone would come up with who had any expertise in the field and put their mind to the issue.
Patent law is not designed for the purposes of people simply laying claims to every and any process or creation on a first come first served basis in order that they alone should reap the benefits of the product or process because they raced to the patent office first. Patent law is supposed to only protect true inventiveness, something not just new but unique and not something that would be a relatively obvious solution to anyone skilled in the field. It does the public no service to give patents to inventions that currently have no real purpose, yet once they do have a purpose in the near future, they are the obvious and simple solution any trained person would have come up with.
Such inventions are not unique, simply designing something that has no current use dose not meet the intended definition of unique in patent law. To then be able to claim patent protection at a later date when there is actually a purpose for on such inventions is a flawed implementation of the patent law system if it is clear that the invention is simply an obvious solution to the issue at hand.
Consider the rather obvious nature of the wheel. Certainly someone likely thought of the interesting rolling nature of wheel like shapes long before anyone dreamed of the vast number of uses it could be put to. Yet it is also quite easy to imagine that it wasn?t long before those who were charged with creating inventions to move things began to resolve the problem using wheel like inventions to aid them, and this happened independently in many areas around the world. To give someone a patent on an invention like the wheel the first time someone comes running to the patent office with the idea, is ludicrous as it soon turns out that once people have a use for such an invention it quickly becomes the obvious answer that many will arrive at on their own.
I think the argument against NTP is that their so called inventions that received patents were not particularly unique and did have an element of obvious design to those who were experts in the field and as such were not deserving of the patents they received.

Posted by: Cayble   Posted on: 02/09/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now