|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Is the USPTO run by knaves or fools? - was Re: US
Michael Champion wrote: > > Back to the USPTO ... the best explanation I've heard for all this is > that the USPTO culture assumes that any previously patentable idea is > in their database. Since software was not patentable for a long time, > many good software ideas were never submitted to the USPTO, hence were > never put in their database. Thus, they are simply blind to the > innovations of the first 30 years or so of computer science and > engineering. I have no idea of the source or the validity of that > hypothesis. > Furthermore, in the case of XML you have 30 years of worldwide uses of markup languages for containing things, notably with ISO 8879 SGML since 1986. There is absolutely no way that *anyone* can have a database of prior art; Robin Cover's XML site is pretty good for somethings, and there are a couple of books listing structures (mine and Dave Megginson's), but these just scratch the surface. It is sad to see the USPTO become a laughing stock like this. Is it their rules or practises or capabilities or the legislation they work under? Perhaps all of them. In Australia we have just negotiated a free trade agreement with the US: as part of the free trade agreement we are apparantly agreeing to accept US monopoly rights on intellectual property: a complete farce! Horribly, the world's hope now lies with PRC, Taiwan, Japan and the less developed nations. If their leaders twig that US IPR is a scam and refuse to sign up, it may help the West get in control. Just like we are seeing that the developing nations are rejecting standards that are tied to IPR and developing their own, I expect at some stage the developing nations will just say "The US-lead patent system is so obviously corrupt, we cannot accept any software/business patents at all." The problem is not pirates from developing countries, it is privateers from established countries. One trouble I see with IPR is that officers of companies with any significant IPR assets cannot really say "The system is crap" without jeopardizing their company's assets and perhaps breaching their fiduciary duty. The logic of the game propels big companies to grab IPR whereever they can just as it propels small companies to have IPR to get investment. Bt.w. I have a blog on this "MS XML Patent Machine patent in doubt" at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4431 Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








