Re:Patent trolls put brakes on S.F. transit app
by kinsho on Sunday September 01, 2013 @01:35AM
(#6309266)
While you have good intentions, I have a feeling your idea would backfire some how. Judging the objectivity of a patent through its inclusion within a peer-reviewed journal or a conference is only going to lead to more loopholes that can be easily exploited.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Patent trolls put brakes on S.F. transit app
by ScottBurson on Sunday September 01, 2013 @03:45AM
(#6309449)
It wouldn't be automatic. Courts consider many kinds of evidence of varying strengths, and the probative value of evidence can be challenged by the opposing side. If it appeared that a journal had sprung up specifically to legitimize patents, evidence supporting that view could be introduced as well. Courts exist to weigh such arguments.
In fact, "objective evidence of nonobviousness" is already a well-established concept in patent law [0]. The change I am proposing is, where currently patents are presumed valid until challenged, under my proposal they would be presumed invalid until evidence of nonobviousness were presented that the court found satisfactory.
I don't think we're going to get rid of patents altogether. No patent system is perfect, but I think my proposal would make for a massive improvement.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obvious...