1 Comment

1. I think the “patent everything you do” mentality produces the lower quality patents that bring to question current obviousness standards (especially in relation to business methods, easily implemented software functionality, etc.).

   It seems that a lot of the business method/software patents that are granted are questionable under 103 grounds for: ‘Rationale reasoned from legal precedent - automation of a known manual process and performed on the Internet’:

   http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/busmethp/busmeth103rej.htm

   The effect of this perceived lower patent quality is then, it seems, magnified by the lower litigation expenses associated with enforcing a less complex technology (lower quality patent).

   Also, I think that the holding companies are perceived as harmful more for their propensity toward enforcing this more trivial innovation (less expensive to enforce, lower quality) than for the fact that they do not themselves invent or produce a product.

   I realize that this is a major generalization on my part, but (to summarize):

   patent everything->more lower quality patents-> larger pool of patents that ‘trolls’ prefer to enforce->increase of this ‘trivial innovation’ tax on our economy (just the opposite effect of what the article asserts).

   Comment by PF — January 2, 2006 #

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Supporters