Re: [Patents] US patent reform strategy inaugurated by myths & lies

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

> > > >Personally I think that a better checking rule for prior art and a 
> > > >shorter
> > > >patent grant period (like 5 years) is something that can make a 
> > > >workable
> > > >solution.
> > >
> > > You raise the right issues.
> >
> > As said before, both of these issues are irrelevant and just a detraction.
>
> I don't remember your points. Can you make an abstract?

prior art searching: a means of spending a lot of tax money to make
patents look better and, at best, to reduce the number of patents, without
actually doing anything for quality in a meaningful sense of that word.
The marginal benefit of extra spending on patent examination must be
studied

        http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/cost/

The cost can be prohibitive and there are limits to what can be
achieved.  Also these procedures cost too much time.  It might be better
to scrap patent examination altogether and rely on some prize-induced
market competition for invalidating patents, as demanded in

        http://www.eurolinux.org/news/cpat01B/


> > It can't be changed, and a look at the swpat database shows you that even
> > 1 year for such patents would be a bad idea.
>
> Any rule can be changed, if there is consesus.

Consensus is even further away on this question than on the question of
technical invention (hardware vs software, material vs immaterial).  In
fact the latter question must be solved before any subset of patents can
be treated specially.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-12789608
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
120,000 signatures against software patents      http://www.noepatents.org/