EIN News says, "U.S. Supreme Court to Decide When Ideas Deserve Patents. It all started in 1997 when a little-known company wanted to patent a method for letting customers of utility companies pay a fixed, predictable sum each month. The patent office rejected their application on the grounds that it was "an abstract idea that simply solves a mathematical problem." Huge legal expenses and 13 years later, the two men behind the case, Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw, had their day in the U.S. Supreme Court on November 9. Most legal experts though, agreed that the duo had no chance of victory. (einnews.com)".
The obvious answer to this one is, "never". Ideas are a dime a dozen. They do have value as initiators for inventors to do work to obtain a bona fide practical invention. Even with this limitation, many inventions that qualify and achieve patent status have no practical value. Those inventions have been a waste of time and money for the inventor and for the US Patent and Trademark Office. If we start patenting ideas, we will be compounding the problems of a patent system, which is already overloaded, even when using the traditional limitations.
The meaning of "had their day in the US Supreme Court" is not clear. Perhaps it means that the court was obtaining information on which to decide whether to take the case. If so, I hope it gets no farther than that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment