Patent stupidity.

[Circlotron]

One wonders what the US patents office is about sometimes...
Seems you don't have to have something that actually works; just pay them the money and their happy it seems.

This pic is from the front page of 6,094,035. It's supposed to be a class D amplifier output stage but using boost regs instead of the more usual buck regs to try and achieve a higher output voltage swing than fed to it by the dc supply rails. However...

[Christer]

I read about a patent granted in Sweden once that made
such extraordinary claims that I had to get a copy of it and
read it. It the thing did what they claimed, they would have
solved one of the most important unsolved problems in
theoretical computer science. Of course they hadn't, they
just shoved their total lack of understanding of the concept
they talked about and the patent office showed their lack
of understanding by granting them a patent. The thing most
probably worked, though, it just didn't have much to do with
the extraordinary claim they made about it.

[Jaka Racman]

Hi,

maybe it could work if Vcc and Vee are below one diode drop?

Best regards,

Jaka Racman

[SY]

Under current law, it's not the job of the examiner to determine if an idea can work or not. That's why there's patents for superluminal antennas, magnetic wine enhancers, and perpetual motion machines (as long as they're not called "perpetual motion machines").

[pooge]

Actually, patent examiners are supposed to determine if something works or not, but are given a limited time to do the job. They are on a quota production system. Put out or you're gone.

[Christer]

Let's see now, what year was it they expected to be able to
close down the patent office because everything would be
invented by then?

(Yes, I know it is said not to be a true story, but it is a good one.)

[SY]

It's a particularly ironic Urban Legend, since it was taken out of context from a speech made by the Patent Commisioner asking for more staff and funding.

[SY]

Hey, pooge, I don't mean to hassle you, you're off duty here, but what's the story with interference, anyway? I've seen patents issue (including mine) with similar application dates covering largely the same material. Looking at the file wrappers, there's always an initialed section for "interference search", but it doesn't look like any interference searching was actually done.

[pooge]

I'd tell you but I'd have to kill myself!

[jan.didden]

Originally posted by pooge
Actually, patent examiners are supposed to determine if something works or not, but are given a limited time to do the job. They are on a quota production system. Put out or you're gone.

Well, those laws have drastically changed around 5 or 6 year ago. It is no longer the responsibility of the patent office to determine if you have anything valid. You want a patent, you get it. Ultimately, it will be decided in court when you are challenged, whether the patent stands up to it.

Jan Didden