undefined | Better HN

0 pointsalok-g12y ago0 comments

See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5934976

The concept has to be novel to be patentable. You cannot get a patent on something that is already publicly known.

Existence of information on a publicly accessible website (even if not indexed by a search engine or behind a pay wall like for a journal publication) is considered to be public knowledge and a patent cannot theoretically be obtained on the concepts covered by that website.

0 comments

genwin12y ago

Yes. However, what's novel is subjective. The patent clerk may not care and has only a few hours to look up prior art. Once you've got the patent you get a jury in Eastern Texas to decide; that's where many of the cases end up. Something that's obvious to us will often be novel to them.

alok-gOP12y ago

Those are indeed the practical issues the system is facing.

>> Something that's obvious to us will often be novel to them.

It should be noted though that the requirements for patentability include the invention being non-obvious to those "skilled in the prior art". The jury deciding upon a case may not be skilled in the prior art themselves, but they need to judge if those actually skilled in the prior art would have found it obvious at the time of the patent's priority date. But again, that's just theory facing the practical issues you noted.

Note: IANAL

fpgeek12y ago

Hmm... that makes me wonder what would happen if the system required the jurors to be skilled in the relevant art. I suspect that even if they limited that to people listed as inventors on at least one patent in the relevant area, that the result would be dramatically anti-software patent compared to the status quo.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse