[AR] Re: Printed engine patent
- From: Uwe Klein <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2020 11:17:22 +0100
Am 08.03.2020 um 04:03 schrieb Henry Spencer:
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020, Stephen Daniel wrote:
Patents are supposed to be a non obvious extension of the prior art. I'm
not sure how patent examiners decide to award patents, but non-obvious is
never a requirement, and extension often isn't.
The US Patent Office (and its counterparts elsewhere) seems to have
given up on (a) paying enough to get and retain staff who are actually ...
AFAICS it is a more US centric issue.
( together with various expansions of what is patentable. )
IMU
Nodding off any patent application
and the special condition in the US to allow
post factum applications.
I've seen funnies in Germany resp. EU active patents.
But not the "duh, obvious" to hilarious stuff you see in US patents.
and IMU again it is intentional. Patent squatting were the counter is
expensive. Add ilicit information flow from competitors into the US.
Uwe
Other related posts: