[Gllug] [OT} Prior art

[Richard Jones]

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:36:33AM +0100, Benedikt Heinen wrote:
> I have a follow-up question - how exactly do you define "non-obvious" for 
> a patent?

Well, you need to contact a patent lawyer for the final answer.

http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/whatis/definition.htm

  *  Involve an inventive step

  An invention involves an inventive step if, when compared with what is
  already known, it would not be obvious to someone with a good
  knowledge and experience of the subject.

Notice "what is already known".

None of this actually matters, however.  You can file a patent for any
old crud.  It's only much later in the process that tests are actually
applied - at least 1 year from initial filing, and in some cases not
until you reach court.  Plenty of time to start extorting other
companies.

Rich.

PS.

The patent office, and their website, have relatively recently become
shamelessly partisan on the subject of patents.  Read these and weep:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/issues/cii.htm
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/benefits/index.htm

They're supposed to be civil servants, not advocates.

-- 
Richard Jones, CTO Merjis Ltd.
Merjis - web marketing and technology - http://merjis.com
Team Notepad - intranets and extranets for business - http://team-notepad.com
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug