From steve.probert@patent.gov.uk  Tue Dec 19 11:55:59 2000
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:55:59 +0000
From: Steve Probert steve.probert@patent.gov.uk
Subject: [Patents] monopoly/publicity contradiction?

PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> What about all the other points?

I was referring to all the other points.  I think we disagree about
everything.

> Such as the monopoly/publicity contradiction that this thread is about?

I see no contradiction.  Monopoly and publicity are the two sides of the
bargain in the patent system.  Without the one, you should not have the
other.  The applicant tells everyone about his invention (publicity), in
return for which the state awards him/her a monopoly for a limited
period of time.  The applicant is not forced to accept the deal - s/he
can take it or leave it.

> such as the "ludicrousness" of patenting a "technical solution" and at the
> same time allowing the public disclosure of its description, which
> consists in a computer program.

Makes perfect sense to me.

> Why are you so selective about discovering contradictions?  

What can I say?

> why is it that such a contradiction is "ludicrous" only if it leads to the
> granting of less patents?

Who said that?  I said that it would be ludicrous to reject a patent
application when the applicant discloses the best means of carrying out
the invention, but to grant it if the applicant only describes one or
more complex and expensive embodiments using, for example, discrete
logic.  Forcing applicants to draft their applications so that they only
describe complex and expensive methods of carrying out the invention
would not result in fewer patents - only poorer ones.  Poorer in the
sense that the public would not be told the easiest and most economic
method of performing the invention.


-- 

Steve Probert
Deputy Director
The Patent Office




