Re:Microsoft's 2003 patent application for the "Is Not" oper...
by talmand on Thursday February 16, 2012 @02:09PM
(#3600156)
I'm curious how many patents there are for devices that are impossible to actually build. You know, fun stuff like warp drives and time machines.
Re:Microsoft's 2003 patent application for the "Is Not" oper...
by dominicmauro on Thursday February 16, 2012 @03:53PM
(#3600575)
Presumably zero. Patents are only permitted for "useful" subject matter. Useful is a term of art: you can still patent silly things like Slinkies: http://www.google.com/patents/US2415012?printsec=drawing – but whatever you patent has to actually function as advertised. So while the Slinky is objectively useless, it does what the patent says it does. A warp drive would be objectively useful, but when you build it, it won't do what the patent says it does; therefore, it's not patentable.
Re:Microsoft's 2003 patent application for the "Is Not" oper...
by alok-g on Thursday February 16, 2012 @05:10PM
(#3600921)
Though not quite in practice of course. I cannot substantiate my claim with data, but have come across several (approved) patents which are actually not even correct -- the described does not function as advertized.
The documentary by This American Life about patents had an IP researcher claiming that over 1/3 of all patents ignore prior art, just by comparing identical text between them: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/android-app?destination=radi...