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.
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.
@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
The problem is not patents in general but of "software" patents in particular.
As for your example, what is preventing you from buying the GPS with the functionality you want?
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.I am interested in this based on the concept of 'invention' vs the remixing of previous ideas
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
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.
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 patentThus, mere economic theories, methods of doing business, mathematical methods or computer programs as such are not patentable “inventions”.
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?