Inventions are not always novel, nonobvious, and useful. Sometimes they're not even feasible and are seemingly ridiculous. There are a number of characteristics that should be considered when thinking about the viability of a patent: validity, prior art, enablement, obviousness, and common sense. But it is important to note that not all issued patents are smart. Many of them don't even make practical sense.
One of the patents we discussed in class is the "Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force." The patent describes an apparatus on which a mother giving birth would be strapped down to and ultimately be spun around to pop the baby out through the force of centrifuge. Although I initially reacted by thinking how simply stupid and dangerous this idea was, a further analysis of it revealed its qualification for a patent on several fronts.
Based on some of the qualifying criteria, for example, this patent is definitely not obvious, which we've learned is a basic tenant for a patent to become viable. Another requirements that the device must be novel. It goes without saying that this product is one of the more novel ideas I've seen in quite some time. I've now proven that this device qualifies for two of the major requirements for a valid patent. The device, however, fails in achieving the third criteria of "usefullness." I can never imagine how such a device could be considered useful given the impracticality of spinning a birthing woman on a table and shooting a newborn out of a womb. I wonder, then, how this patent was actually issued.
This brings me to my point: how can the patent system be taken seriously if devices like this are protected under the rule of law? At what point does a product become unpatentable? It seems as though anything under the sun can be patented, even devices that have zero practical or safe implication in the real world. It's patents like these that create a slower turnaround time, and ultimately clog the bureaucracies to prevent faster and more efficient turnover for more valid patents. The question then becomes, where do we draw the line, and how do we determine what is worthwhile and what is not?
Aviv, I agree that patents like these clog the system. But although we may think they have zero practical implication in the real world the inventor has the right to protect his or her idea/invention regardless of how dumb the rest of us think it is. Thats the beauty of living in the United States of America.
ReplyDelete@Cory, I think there is merit to the argument that regulations should protect all forms of intellectual property. That being said, I think there needs to be a standard and a limit for what should be able to qualify. For instance, if an invention doesn't have any practical implication and will never be created based on safety measures alone, I think that qualifies as a good enough reason to reject that patent.
ReplyDeleteI agree, if the average time it takes a Patent to be issued is 3 years and the reason is the ridiculous patents that are trying to come through, then there should be a screening team that rejects any patent which does not follow novel, obvious, or useful in a direct manner.
ReplyDeleteThe ultimately question is who is actually reviewing patents. Subjectivity is inherent in the system, and to reduce it, we add complexity. I question the selection process and quality of the candidates who are selected for the patent office.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The patent system needs to be fixed or they need to have more people working to go through the applications.
ReplyDeleteThis is ridiculous. I'm not even sure they're doing their job anymore haha.
ReplyDeleteI am more curious about why people bother to patent something like this. It costs money and time to submit and maintain patents. You can't even troll with this kind of patent where no one will really take this method seriously. I guess USPTO just feels the same and gladly takes patent fees from these non-sense inventors.
ReplyDeleteI think there should a be some sort of USPTO infrastructure that actively searches for, and invalids garbage patents like this. I wouldn't say it's ideal (ideally garbage like this will never get approved in the first place), but it would be a step in the right direction.
ReplyDelete@Tik Kei, perhaps people want to patent things like this so they can simply have a patent on their resume. It might give them more credibility in future endeavors to have a patent with their name on it.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog post Aviv. Very informative. I agree with Tik Kei Dicky Woo. Patents cost money and time, and even more to maintain them. There should be a limit on patenting those silly patents and the standard should be more strict to patent a silly invention. I wish we discussed in class a bit more about the benefits of silly patents today in America.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Patrick. There should definitely be some sort of infrastructure specially built that separates and invalidates such stupid patents. Patents like these undermine the entire system!
ReplyDelete