"csj" wrote: > Just because something's obvious doesn't mean it can't be > patented.
That's true today, but only because the USPTO is broken. Long ago, when they were doing their job, the rules were: 1. No prior art 2. Not "obvious to anyone skilled in the art" 3. Useful and valuable. #2 meant you couldn't patent routine solutions to common problems, only truly ingenious ones. Cleverness was subject to the "reasonable person" test. #1 meant you couldn't patent something that had already been described by someone else, but it also meant you couldn't patent something you observed in nature or in human culture. That meant, among other things, mathematical algorithms couldn't be patented, because mathematics are discovered in nature, not invented. It also meant biological features such as genetic expressions. This rule was reversed when the courts added a new category, the "use patent", where you patent *the use of* something found in nature. Somehow prior art was overlooked in use patents, and it is now possible to observe primitive cultures using some herbal remedy they have been using for hundreds of years, and run home and patent the use of that herb to treat the same malady. It's completely out of control. Be afraid that someone will patent the act of typing on a keyboard, or of breathing in and out, and try to charge you a royalty. -- Cameron US Patent #5,663,634 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
