[Cdn-DMCA] JPEG Extinct? Send as input to Innovation Strategy!!

[Alan DeKok]

"Chris Palmer" <cpalmer at accesscable.net> wrote:
> 1. Patents are incomprehensible to me, and therefore useless. Patents should
> be in language of those skilled in the art;

  Ideally, yes.  I've read a number of patents in my field, including
the ones held by the company I work for.  They are all completely
incomprehensible to me.

  Since patents are supposed to "disclose" the invention being
patented, I would suggest that this incomprehensibility would be
reasonable grounds to not issue a patent, or challenge an issued one.

> This is no different from drawings for mechanical devices  conforming to
> mechanical engineering standards, or electronic diagrams using standard
> symbols for "resistor" etc.

  Yes, but patents *do* use standard language.  The problem is that
it's *patent* language, not *reality* language.

> There must be some sort of requirement for clarity, that practitioners - not
> just patent lawyers - be able to understand  the invention.

  So far as I understand, the invention must be disclosed.  If it
isn't, then it has no patent protection.  Put in another way, patents
only protect what they describe.  If they don't describe anything,
they're nonsense.

> 3.  I have heard that some lawyers advise their clients not to patent
> search, because it is actually dangerous to do a patent review. The penalty
> is less for infringing a patent in ignorance through independant development
> than it is to review a patent, and  be subconsciously affected by it, or
> review a patent and conclude(wrongly) that it does not apply.

  I've heard that, too.

> 5. What is the effect on innovation where there are multiple overlapping
> patents?

  Innovation stops.

  See the book "Trust", by Francis Fukayama.  The lower the cost of
doing transactions (business, innovation, etc), the more you get.
High transaction costs lead to a "freezing" of ideas and money.

> 6.I can have a lawyer certify that I have clear title to my real property,
> is there any way I can have a patent lawyer certify that that my product
> (code, machine, etc) does not infringe on any patent, or that I must  get
> rights to patent XYZ?

  Not currently.  The patent lawyer is not competent in a technical
field, so he can't give opinions there.  The technical people aren't
competent in patent law, so they're screwed, too.  It's a nice
catch-22.

  Alan DeKok.
--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.flora.org/dmca/