News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Microsoft's 2003 patent application for the "Is Not" operator. Parent comment

Re:Microsoft's 2003 patent application for the "Is Not" oper... by monochromatic on Thursday February 16, 2012 @03:18PM (#3600471)
> It's bad enough that the USPTO will rubberstamp everything with the right fees

Clearly you have never prosecuted a patent application. Yes, examiners make mistakes sometimes, and patents issue that shouldn't. But your statement is just nowhere near being true.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Microsoft's 2003 patent application for the "Is Not" oper... by waqf on Thursday February 16, 2012 @07:56PM (#3601492)
I agree that GP overstated the problem, but I think you understate it. The USPTO systematically and recklessly grants patents that should not be issued.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Microsoft's 2003 patent application for the "Is Not" oper... by monochromatic on Thursday February 16, 2012 @08:31PM (#3601603)
I think most patent grants are reasonable enough... the problem is that HN only ever hears about the really egregious cases.
[ Parent | on HN ]