No it doesn't. Not at the US Patent Office anyway. You don't even have to show that your solution is actually a solution.
se
One of my favorite patents is the patent issued to John Bedini for his CD "clarifier."
In his patent he claimed that simply spinning a CD in a fixed magnetic field not only rearranged the data on the CD, but it also performed data compression.
He "proved" this in the patent by taking a Kodak PhotoCD, copying one of the files off it into a directory on his hard drive. Then he "clarified" the disc, which again simply involved spinning it in a fixed magnet field, and then copied the same file into a different directory on his hard drive.
However instead of comparing the two files that he'd copied over, he first pulled each file into a graphics program and exported them out as PostScript files.
Then he pulled the PostScript files into a text editor. He noted that one file contained more lines of text than the other, hence the "clarification" had performed data compression. He then did a comparison of the two files and found differences, hence the data had been rearranged.
I took a graphic image and pulled it into my graphics software and exported it as a PostScript file into two different directories. I didn't do anything else. Then I looked at the file sizes and they were different. Ran a file compare and found numerous differences.
The PostScrip algorithm simply produced different files when exporting the same image.
Bedini was a total Froot Loop. But he got his patent.
se
The patent lawyers retained by our company tell me that in their estimation that around 90% of patents would fail a proper legal challenge.
As someone with more than average experience with the US patent system, I would think that is probably a reasonable estimate.
Some IEEE publications contain a section at the back giving brief information on recent patents (probably mostly US patents). I was astonished at the trivial things and well-known things which were included. It seems that you can take well known technology, arrange it in some way which has not been patented before (although such arrangements are routinely used by engineers, and may even appear in texbooks or other publications), invent some claims and then get a patent. The innovation seems to be in the claims, not the 'invention'!
But then you have to factor out the cost of the legal challenge. For some it's simply short money to get claims allowed, once issued the nuisance payoffs out of court can add up to a tidy sum. Patent trolls are worse than even the wire hucksters.
He hasn't. I have been trying to get in touch with him. Sent a friend request on Facebook, sent him a message in Messenger but so far nothing. Sent a message on his band's page a bit ago.
se
If it's been allowed, that means the application has been published and the file wrapper is available.
Why does this make me think of the Synergistic Research HOT deal you sent me for analysis?
Why does this make me think of the Synergistic Research HOT deal you sent me for analysis?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.