[Patents] novelty and the anti-copycat affect

[mva@df.lth.se (Martin Wahlén)]

> Also, they would need a huge collection of time-stamped computer programs,
> binary or source, that have been circulating in the public or widely sold
> on the market.  Many of these programs constitute prior art with respect
> to functionality claims, as are usually at the heart of software patents.

Indeed, but I will think that we cannot expect the patent offices to deal
with binary only programs. I mean what if I have this great program for my
Nixdorf computer (from 1968), how are they going to run it, let alone
understand it? No, I think that what they need documentation of what it
does.

How this documentation is to be provided is another matter.

> When talking to small companies about what they might want swpats for, the
> usual answer is "to protect our new functionality from being imitated by a
> competitor who has seen our demo program at the exhibition".  So in fact
> even a demo program that didn't circulate but was shown at an exhibition
> is prior art.

Yes indeed, I know of alot of companies that are afriad to bring demos to
exhibitions due to the reasons you state.

Martin