[Patents] American Inventor Coalition / was Re: Software and

[kodama@netcourrier.com (kodama@netcourrier.com)]

>> So, your example does not answer to the question.
>Oh yes it does.

Well... not really =21
Or anyway you failed to demonstrate it. A logical link is missing.

Anyway...



>
>In the USA, several patents have been filed for the same algorithms, =

>thus accepted, expressed in different ways in different contexts.

That shows that some patents are invalid ??
Well, that is not new. The whole patent system is taking this insufficienc=
y into account, notably with the opposition period in Europe. =



>This shows that examination can not be carried out, and that, from a
>3d party's point of view, no prior art search can be carried out,
>because of this variability. No one knows what to search for.

On the contrarty, it seems easier for the 3rd party: the more the scope is=
 fuzzy, the easier it is to find prior art, anticipating the patent.


>It shows that the system has gone too far, trying to patent concepts
>that have no material reality.

I don't subscribe to your material/concept distinguo.
But I agree the point that EPO has gone too far, and that sometimes the in=
ventive step criteria is not really assessed.


>What will patent attorneys do with that ?

They do not care, I suppose. They are tools, not deciders.

>Sue God for inventing prime numbers ?       8=5E)

I am afraid you are infringing lots of anti-SW patents having already trie=
d this sort of funny remarks =21  =5D;->

----- La messagerie itin=E9rante sans abonnement NetCourrier -----
Web: www.netcourrier.com - Minitel : 3615 NETCOURRIER
T=E9l=E9phone: 08 36 69 00 21