Patently Ridiculous
What better way to start off than ranting about patents ? Don't run away yet... consider it a humor piece. Let it first be said that I'm not opposed to the idea of a patent. A well-run patent system does indeed encourage innovation. It assures a limited-time possibility of a profit to an individual (or corporation) who puts in an effort at research and development. Unfortunately, the US system is quite broken.
I first came to that conclusion when presented with the idea of patenting genes. (Who's the inventor, God?) The problems are exemplified very well by software patents (which is pointed out by many others, especially those in the free/open source software community). Software, as far as I know, is now the only entity subject to both copyright and patent law. A mathematical algorithm is not patentable, but, apparently, if you write it in a computer language and slap the words "system" or "method" on it, along with numerous other buzzwords, it becomes an "invention."
Not actually having invented it should never stop you from applying for a patent. Our friends at Microsoft have decided that a test for inequality of two pointers objects is patentable. (Some ridiculous patents do get rejected in review. These include the infamous Microsoft attempt to patent the FAT filesystem, which was successfully challenged by the Public Patent Foundation.)
So, you might be thinking: maybe the patent office doesn't have expertise in software? Could an average joe (or patent examiner) realize that the isNot operator isNot an invention? (Take a crack at it, it's a fun read).
Here's some food for thought (in no particular order):
The 2004 Ig Nobel prize for engineering went to Donald J. and Frank J. Smith for patenting the combover.
And, in case you thought you would never be able to get a patent of your own because your vocabulary just isn't large enough to come up with strings of long words for simple concepts (you're not an academic or a lawyer), take heart: Steven Olson patented a Method for swinging on a swing on behalf of his five year-old son. "Licenses are available from the inventor upon request."
Know of any even more ridiculous patents for the list? (And remember, I read slashdot too :-) ).
I first came to that conclusion when presented with the idea of patenting genes. (Who's the inventor, God?) The problems are exemplified very well by software patents (which is pointed out by many others, especially those in the free/open source software community). Software, as far as I know, is now the only entity subject to both copyright and patent law. A mathematical algorithm is not patentable, but, apparently, if you write it in a computer language and slap the words "system" or "method" on it, along with numerous other buzzwords, it becomes an "invention."
Not actually having invented it should never stop you from applying for a patent. Our friends at Microsoft have decided that a test for inequality of two pointers objects is patentable. (Some ridiculous patents do get rejected in review. These include the infamous Microsoft attempt to patent the FAT filesystem, which was successfully challenged by the Public Patent Foundation.)
So, you might be thinking: maybe the patent office doesn't have expertise in software? Could an average joe (or patent examiner) realize that the isNot operator isNot an invention? (Take a crack at it, it's a fun read).
Here's some food for thought (in no particular order):
The 2004 Ig Nobel prize for engineering went to Donald J. and Frank J. Smith for patenting the combover.
And, in case you thought you would never be able to get a patent of your own because your vocabulary just isn't large enough to come up with strings of long words for simple concepts (you're not an academic or a lawyer), take heart: Steven Olson patented a Method for swinging on a swing on behalf of his five year-old son. "Licenses are available from the inventor upon request."
Know of any even more ridiculous patents for the list? (And remember, I read slashdot too :-) ).