[LINK] Patent reform bill 'useless' for open source

[Eleanor Lister]

David Boxall wrote:
> <http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2188336/patent-reform-bill-useless-open>
>
>
> "Critics charge that many patents awarded today are overly broad or
> fail to take notice of 'prior art',"
> ...
> "We are sceptical about whether this [reform] represents any
> substantial change,"
> ...
> "It is still too easy to get a patent on software out of the US Patent
> Office that is too broad,"

Quite:

> I recently came across Congressional testimony from one year ago, April
> 2006, given by Jon Dudas.  It clearly illustrates why patent quality has
> gotten worse under the gross mismanagement of Dudas.  He states:
>
>     "At the USPTO, we have a strict definition of quality.  'Patent
>     quality' means that the application examination has been conducted
>     to conform with current law and Office procedure."
>
> This is a clear example of the warped thinking in PTO management - this
> "strict" definition is a rule-following bureaucrats definition - to
> them, a good patent is one that issued by checking off all of the rules
> in MPEP.  This STRICT definition totally ignores the role of prior art
> - the applicant's obligation to send more in, the PTO's obligation to
> supply examiners with the time, tool and resources to do good prior art
> searching, etc.  This is not a definition of 102/103/112 quality - this
> is a definition of MPEP-following quality.  And this dishonest view of
> patent quality has been policy at the PTO way too long.  It is   SILLY.
>
> Greg Aharonian
> Internet Patent News Service

a patent lawyer who is all for business method patents, but thinks the
USPTO has degenerated into a steaming pile of horse dung.

he has more rants at: http://ns1.patenting-art.com/

not a happy camper.

regards,
    EL

------------
Eleanor Ashley Lister
South Sydney Greens
http://ssg.nsw.greens.org.au
webmistress at ssg.nsw.greens.org.au