From phm@a2e.de  Sun Apr 29 23:31:06 2001
From: phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:31:06 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Patents] Re: difficulty vs technicity
In-Reply-To: <20010430000306.A28037@jl1.quim.ucm.es>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0104300018440.8063-100000@mulix.oas.a2e.de>

> However, that reform is not imposible. Of course, it would require
> lot of intelligence. But it would be good for all industrial sectors.
>
> It would require:
>
> - Changing of the law. Something beyond "non-obvious".
>
> - Changing methodology. Design a system where examiners cannot be
> pressed to accept trivial patents.
>
> And probably many other things.

I still doubt whether it is possible in theory.
In practice it is so far away that it is simply not an option.
Apart from having to fight legitimate conservatism ("if it ain't broke,
don't fix it", said a pharmaceutics patent expert to me) and radically
some international treaties, it is may not be possible to find any
objective criteria or acceptable social games for assessing "difficulty".

Moreover, beside assessing difficulty, you also have to determine the
right scope of claims and solve the novelty problem.  Moreover you have to
balance the interests of the patent holder with some other rights
concerning interoperability, freedom of informational self-determination
(the "code is law" problem), which are largely unknown in the classical
patenting areas.  Classical patent law also has regulations concerning
what you may do with you patent and where other rights take precedence,
but the more you get into information processing the more these conflicts
become prominent.  So even if I said I "accept software patents in
principle", that could mean very little.

-phm






