Re: [Patents] TRIPs lie: the UNICE version

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

> >The problem seems still to be the use of obvious swpats.  Too many claims
> >with no innovation.....
>
> That is very true.  I estimate that more than 50% of the issued software
> patents in the United States (which issues over 10,000 swpats a year)
> are not valid.

Two steps of confusion in here:

(1) The problem about logic patents is breadth, not obviousness.
    Once you discard the filter of technical invention, you get
    broad claims on abstract and therefore broad and basic ideas.
    The technical invention is one of very few means in the patent
    system to keep claims narrow and close to real work that
    some individuals actually did.  Hardware patents are, ideally,
    similar to software copyright.  Copyright is also granted for
    obvious ideas.
(2) Greg's patent-busting business does not address the obviousness
    problem at all.  You can't solve the problem of obviousness by
    relying on the criterion of novelty.

More on the obviousness question is found at

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

This text somewhat neglects the broadness question though, which seems
very basic to me now.

-- 
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/