[Patents] viagra overturned

[John Smith notobvious@hotmail.com]

>I think its interesting because of the reasons the judge
>gave for invalidating the patent - that it was based on
>already published PUBLIC DOMAIN work.

Slight misunderstanding. What Hugh Laddie probably said was that it was 
based on work IN the public domain, i.e. the patent claimed what was already 
known or was obvious in view of what was known. This is the major reason 
patents are found invalid, as I'm sure Greg Aharonian will testify (he makes 
a living from searches).

This applies equally to software. IMHO one of the major reasons there are 
problems with software patents is that the national offices and the EPO are 
not geared up to search software properly.

You can do something about this if you come across a European patent 
application you know is claiming something old. (NB - an application, 
Hartmut Pilch isn't always very good about distinguishing applications from 
patents). You can write to the EPO, quoting the application number, and 
stating you wish to "make an observation under Article 115 EPC". It costs 
nothing and may be ignored, but at least you've done something positive.

Of course, if a patent is granted you can file an opposition within 9 months 
and be a party to the proceedings, but we're talking serious money.

"notobvious"

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.