What does invention mean?

[Sceadwian]

I just watched this video and it really got me to thinking a bit, because of the recent thread that it strikes me as similar to.

I think they may be closely related. I'll leave it to the reader to determine in what way and comment as they please, though I would like everyone to please keep all comments as clean and civil as possible and observe all forum rules in responce.

I am interested in this based on the concept of 'invention' vs the remixing of previous ideas, and think that the entire concept of the way the current US patent system itself is so seriously flawed it's dragging down billion dollar industries along with it.

 

[Sceadwian]

Tesla reference at 10:10...

 

[bryan1]

[MODNOTE]Removed. Keep the post positive and productive.[/MODNOTE]

 

[jpanhalt]

The word "invention" can mean many things, including ideas and processes -- not that those definitions would be universally accepted. Frankly, I don't understand why you want to discuss that definition here.

Now, if you want to patent something in the United States, there is a definition that needs to be fulfilled:

Source:https://www.uspto.gov/main/glossary/index.html
invention:
any art or process (way of doing or making things), machine, manufacture, design, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, or any variety of plant, which is or may be patentable under the patent laws of the United States.

Yet again, I don't see what purpose there is in discussing that specific definition. I don't believe any of us are sufficiently skilled in US patent law to give much insight into how that definition is applied in contentious cases.

From your other posts, you seem concerned over the question of "obviousness." As an example to test your view of "obviousness," I know from first hand experience that using double sided, clear sticky tape instead of a looped piece of regular cellophane tape to sample something was granted a patent. I suspect the issue of obviousness usually comes about when the owner of a patent claims another individual has infringed on his rights, not at the granting of patents. Of course, I have no way of knowing how many patents have actually been denied based on obviousness.

John

 

[Sceadwian]

You suspect incorrectly. Many patents have been granted even in the face of 'obviousness' because obviousness is not sufficiently defined. It just gets tied up in court and hence in court money for the proceedings.

 

[tvtech]

[MODNOTE]Deleted Off Topic[/MODNOTE]

 

[Sceadwian]

With the US patent system I believe the problem is that if that it can't help out the little guy, because if any contention is made the little guy gets bankrupted under court costs and the cases get dragged out in time. I don't even want to think about what the lawyer and court fees for the Apple/Samsung case was.

Just as an example with Tesla in specific. Marconi tried to patent improvements in radio technology that the court ruled in favor of Tesla against Marconi because his work was based off Tesla's patents. The problem was Tesla died before the court ruled and he never got a penny from it, it never should have taken that long. The obviousness of Tesla's patents didn't serve him any good.

Meanwhile the 'obviousness' of Apple's patents is glaringly overlooked. I mean they ACTUALLY patented the pinch zoom 'invention' it's just gone way too far, and as stated they've basically patented a rounded rectangle.

 

[nsaspook]

The problem is not patents in general but of "software" patents in particular. The notion that a logical construction of ideas executed by a computer is a "invention" seems strange in almost every case (must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art) as it looks to be a work of "art" instead covered by copyright/trademark law. To say that a "artist" can claim exclusive use of a style of drawing a horse to a canvas by calling it his invention seems to defy logic but if the canvas is the fabric of computer hardware (real or not) and the program is the artist drawing what the user asks (program interaction/interface) how is it logically different? The "look and feel" area of software patents has caused a huge problem in usability, compatibility of devices and stopped innovation , for example a simple GPS interface where obvious functionally (cross street display while moving) has been removed because of this stupidity caused sometimes by patent trolls whose only reason for existence is to make money from licensing extortion.

 

[jpanhalt]

@nsaspool

for example a simple GPS interface where obvious functionally (cross street display while moving) has been removed because of this stupidity caused sometimes by patent trolls whose only reason for existence is to make money from licensing extortion.

You seem to be suggesting that something which is extremely useful should not be patentable. Why shouldn't that once-in-a-lifetime epiphany by an inventor be rewarded? If you invented a cure for diabetes, why shouldn't you be rewarded financially? Isn't that why we have patents? Aren't the vast majority of patents worthless? It's a lottery.

As for your example, what is preventing you from buying the GPS with the functionality you want?

John

 

[3v0]

At this point one has to wonder if the patent system is outdated and doing more harm then good.

We might be better off without one.

 

[nsaspook]

@nsaspool



You seem to be suggesting that something which is extremely useful should not be patentable. Why shouldn't that once-in-a-lifetime epiphany by an inventor be rewarded? If you invented a cure for diabetes, why shouldn't you be rewarded financially? Isn't that why we have patents? Aren't the vast majority of patents worthless? It's a lottery.

As for your example, what is preventing you from buying the GPS with the functionality you want?

John

Don't misquote me please.

The problem is not patents in general but of "software" patents in particular.

That's very specific, so a cure for diabetes should be patentable but the screen user interface for a device that gives you the cure should not be as it is not an inventive step. The worth of an idea has nothing to do with my argument as it's value is not determined by uniqueness, originality or obviousness but by it's usefulness and even if it is useful it might not be a patentable subject.

As for your example, what is preventing you from buying the GPS with the functionality you want?

Nothing if the desired feature set on another device with that functionally is available but if obvious functionally can be patented (power on/off button on the front, turn knob CW to increase volume, etc ...) design considerations are made that do not promote innovation of actual new functions but only of slightly different ways of doing the same thing like rounded corners instead of sharp corners or what changes need to be made to gestures when selecting window interaction on a screen. IMO the main problem with software patents or inventions is what "is" non-obvious to a "person skilled in the art" and at what point does a mathematical formula become so complex it becomes a new invention.

 

[alec_t]

I am interested in this based on the concept of 'invention' vs the remixing of previous ideas

As someone who has a background in Patents I can say that the great majority of patented inventions are developments/improvements on something which has been done previously; the minority are totally novel concepts . The developed/improved thing has to have novelty and be non-obvious to experts in the relevant art. Simply combining two well-known ideas will, in general, be regarded as obvious if those ideas would naturally be associated in some way. If the two ideas were, however, in quite un-related fields then it might not be obvious to combine them.
During prosecution of a patent application officials make searches of prior-published material to assess novelty and obviousness, but are unable to call on expert evidence and do not have access to material which might only be available from certain restricted sources; so they give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant. Thus patents are granted with a presumption of validity, but the validity can only be tested fully by court proceedings such as we've witnessed in the Apple v Samsung case.

 

[jpanhalt]

Don't misquote me please.

That's very specific, so a cure for diabetes should be patentable but the screen user interface for a device that gives you the cure should not be as it is not an inventive step.

That is very interesting. We come obviously form very different perspectives. I think the interface, which is not essential to the diagnosis of the patient, should be patentable. Moreover, I will defend medical patents, because that is the law. In reality, I am opposed to patented medicine. I think giving patients the best possible care is at a "pay grade" above any patent attorney or patent officer. I am talking about the practice of medicine, not specific drugs, algorithms, or medical devices. We do not currently have a better mechanism to spur development of better and safer drugs than patents. If you know of one, please reveal it. In brief, physicians should not be subject to patents in the diagnosis of their patients; drugs, out of necessity, should be protected.

Now, as for algorithms that improve patient care or the human condition, no process is unique. Let's say a patient has in infection. That can be diagnosed in a variety of ways. But, let's assume you have a simpler or better way (i.e. a new algorithm). That way saves cost. Why should you not benefit from those savings? Patients should never be disadvantaged. But, the inventor of the better and cheaper algorithm should be rewarded for the same reason that we allow drugs to be patented. A system that requires every physician or inventor to be a saint will not work.

I simply do not see why a new algorithm or program should not be patentable. People have been finding their way around the world for millennia. If someone makes that simpler, then they should be rewarded by having patent protection.

John

 

[nsaspook]

That is very interesting. We come obviously form very different perspectives. I think the interface, which is not essential to the diagnosis of the patient, should be patentable

If the interface is somehow a integral part of the treatment (graphics patterns or manipulation with I/O device sequences that alter the brain or body in some therapeutic way) and not just an automation of a manual process I would agree but if it's just a graphical representation of parameters and logical actions to an operator I don't because it's just one out of possible thousands of ways to represent possible human interaction with a system that implements the actual invention.

TIP 3: Is your innovation patentable? Not all types of software-related innovation can enjoy patent protection.


In connection with software-related innovation, particular attention should be paid to the requirements concerning patentable subject matter and inventive step (non-obviousness). Firstly, a patent is granted for an “invention”, which may be described, in general, as a solution to a technical problem. So far, there is no international definition of “invention”, and indeed, each national law would give you a different answer to the question as to which subject matter falls under the term patentable “invention”. In many countries, “inventions” are required to have a technical character, or to provide a solution using laws of nature. Thus, mere economic theories, methods of doing business, mathematical methods or computer programs as such are not patentable “inventions”. Since this requirement varies from one country to another, as explained further in TIP 4, you should pay special attention as to whether your software-related innovation is covered by patentable subject matter under the relevant patent law.

Secondly, in order to obtain a patent, an invention must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art having regard to the prior art. It is not enough that the claimed invention is new, i. e., that it is different from what exists in the state of the art. But the difference between the claimed invention and the existing state of the art should be significant and essential to the invention. Therefore, it is most likely that it will not be possible to obtain a patent for a software-related innovation that simply replaces existing technical and physical solutions with the same solutions using software and a computer, insofar as such a replacement would be obvious to an average engineer in the relevant technical field.

**broken link removed**

 

[alec_t]

Thus, mere economic theories, methods of doing business, mathematical methods or computer programs as such are not patentable “inventions”.

That is the position here in the UK, also in the rest of Europe and in many jurisdictions. Mere presentation of information and diagnostic methods and surgical procedures practised on the human body are also excluded (nobody wants a surgeon to have to stop mid-operation to wonder if he/she may be infringing someone's patent ). Deciding whether or not an invention is merely one of those excluded things, or is something more (e.g. a computer-implemented invention which has a technical character such as power-saving or more accurate milling) has kept UK and European courts busy for decades, however!
The US is out on a limb and its Courts have ruled "anything made by man under the sun" can be patented.

 

[Sceadwian]

nsaspook, have you looked at the particulars of the Apple/Samsung suite and the exact patents that were involved? None of those are inventions! They're just design patents... Next thing you know they'll be patenting a specific colour... Oh wait they've already done that, 3M's is the only company that's allowed to sell a certain color of yellow earplugs. It's a whole lot of silliness, what does it honestly protect?

 

[nsaspook]

nsaspook, have you looked at the particulars of the Apple/Samsung suite and the exact patents that were involved? None of those are inventions! They're just design patents... Next thing you know they'll be patenting a specific colour... Oh wait they've already done that, 3M's is the only company that's allowed to sell a certain color of yellow earplugs. It's a whole lot of silliness, what does it honestly protect?

Design patents also require something innovative but are a lot easier to get. With billions at stake the result will be to stifle innovation in products and reduce options until Samsung designs around it by changing trivial details that are meaningless to the user but important to the lawyers. I don't have a smartphone (don't want or need one) and only carry a two-way pager while on the job so it's mainly academic to me what they do or how the phones operate.

 

[Mikebits]

I think my Iphone is the Bee's knee's. From the GPS map app to the graphing calculator, this is one tool I don't know how I lived without.

 

[nsaspook]

https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2012/09/R42668_0.pdf

The patent troll problem.

PAEs are frequently referred to as “patent trolls,” after the villains of folklore known to lie in wait
under bridges they did not build, then emerge from the smog to demand tolls from unsuspecting
travelers.30 The term “troll” is controversial because it is both pejorative and ambiguous, often
used imprecisely for any opportunistic or unpopular patent holder.31 But it is best understood as
an epithet for PAEs, which object to the label and argue essentially that the fees they collect are
legitimate and needed to fund investment in infrastructure—that if they did not take tolls, bridges
would be fewer in number and lower in quality.

 

[Sceadwian]

They're not investing in anything other than their own pocket books. Between software patents and the absurdity of patenting designs and methods that are obviously not original, the entire system is utterly broken right now.

The only thing the patent system is doing right now is making the drug companies billions and causing patent troll companies to be allowed to exist. It's protecting no 'little guy'