[Patents] Re: Patents digest, Vol 1 #345 - 13 msgs

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> > Each needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, working out whether
> > granting a twenty-year monopoly is economically justified.
> > 
> 
> This is a common misunderstanding and one of the issues why in
> general it is difficult that patents work well. The examiner cannot
> decide when a patent is good for the society or not. He can apply
> the law only. Nothing more. Nothing else. If the law says that
> a patentable invention has "to be non-obvious" (US) or "it must
> have an inventive step" (Europe) and an invention meets these
> criterion the patent office *must* grant the patent.

Very correct.  This is indeed a common misunderstanding, and one even
might speculate whether there is something in Anglosaxon culture which
makes people specifically inclined to fall prey to this "utilitarian" or
"pragmatic" misunderstanding.

We need a set of rules for delimiting patentability, and this set of rules
has to satisfy two criteria

(1) clarity
(2) good tradeoff between freedom and macro-economic benefit

Both are equally important.  Good and unclear rules are often worse than
bad and clear ones.  Of course you cant score 100% on either point.

-phm