Re: [Patents] technology definition amendments

[Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>]

Greg wrote:

> > The American courts have had a simple unstated policy - if you can't
> > define the terms such as "abstract", "technical", "business", we aren't
> > going to allow the Patent Office to use the terms to deny patentability.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Hartmut Pilch wrote:

> They are playing with the word "technical" because they want back-doors
> everywhere.


  I suspect this language problem would get fixed very quickly if the
burden of proof was reversed.  Rather than "we aren't going to allow the
Patent Office to use the terms to deny patentability", it should be "we
aren't going to allow the Patent Office to use the terms to grant
patentability".

  The default for patents should be that they are rejected and referred to
the courts if there is disagreement, rather than granted and (possibly)  
referred to the courts if there is someone rich and interested enough to
deal with the problem.

  Change the burden of proof in the law (innocent until proven guilty,
rather than guilty until proven innocent) and you change the nature of the
law.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/