They also test for obviousness mate.

If you think you can do better than a patent office examiner get on it because they’re extremely well paid.

Or maybe you could stop and draw a line under what you think is correct. Have you ever considered the possibility that actually you haven’t got the first clue how to properly analyse a patent because it’s a profession that requires extensive training and eye to detail?

I know on the internet it’s fun to pretend you actually know everything because everything is a Google search away but to even properly contextualise and separate good patents and bad patents isn’t a skill you can just pick up in 5 minutes to win an argument.

You’ve not even remotely began to asses novelty properly but kudos for trying.

You’ve not even referenced the claims of the patent, which is actually what is protected. It’s already extremely likely the examiner has flagged these up as prior art and more and still passed it as allowable after a thorough novelty search and several rounds of amendments. Lots of things are sort of like other inventions but what they actually do lies outside of the claim scope.

The invention is not what is patented, the claims are. There are undoubtedly novel features in the claims or again the examiner wouldn’t allow it.

Barring a performance of a full novelty search where you break down the claims and compare them to the prior art individually, you aren’t convincing me that the claims aren’t novel.

Assessing novelty is one of the most difficult parts of being a patent attorney and can’t be done with a cursory search.

If it was something you already did prior to filing and you could prove it then their case would be extremely flimsy, but I do understand where you come from.

It really depends on jurisdiction, in the UK it’s not possible to even patent software. In Europe it is, but regulations are strict. The US patent law is a little bit wonky in this regard.

The only actual solution is one that both sides wouldn’t accept, a secular one state solution. Alas there are too many religious crazies for that to be a reality.

I’m pretty sure Hamas are not interested in negotiations for peace. It’s very reductive to blame one side as bad faith actors in what is the most complicated peace process that’s ever faced humanity.

I agree that Israel should be open to shifting some of their past red lines, but Hamas are not rational actors. They are religious extremists akin to ISIS. Why they are like that is a historical question, but it’s very difficult to negotiate peace with fundamentalistic radicals.

Now, Zionism is also bad don’t get me wrong about that either, but it’s a different flavour of bad.

I understand this but it’s still reprehensible to do so and leaves Israel with very little choice other than to go in on the ground, or just accept the threat of terrorism permanently. There is a reason Israel gives a lot of warning for their strikes. I do genuinely think they are under very real pressure from allies to reduce civilian casualties.

Maybe if the civilians are actually militants then Hamas should stop counting them as civilian casualties?

So you don’t have an answer. Thought not.

I’ve protected people who have been attempted to be bullied by a larger company into ceasing production of a product. That’s literally my job.

Patent attorneys are a highly regulated profession which have to adhere to strict ethical standards and rigorous training in the law. I serve the interests of my clients. It doesn’t matter if you’re a large or small enterprise, the law is interpreted exactly the same throughout the process.

I would suggest reducing official fees to make it easier to purchase a patent, but that just reduces the quality of examination. In reality there is a balance to be struck between affordable patents and quality of patents which isn’t always struck correctly. I would advocate for government funded organisations that provide pro bono legal support for small enterprises as a way to make the system a little fairer. In the US they have a tiered system which makes patents cheaper for smaller companies, which is also something I think that should be adopted as standard.

Overall there is no simple solution. Life is complicated and messy and anybody who claims it isn’t is and that there are simple solutions to very layered societal problems are snake oil salesmen with an agenda.

They would only be able to get away with this if it had already been determined that they did indeed invent that thing. Many choose not to fight cease and desists when it would be in their best interest to counter claim.

You can’t grant a patent for something that is already in the public domain at the time of filing, regardless of whether or not that thing is currently patent protected.

Edit: this is such a funny comment to want to downvote. “Fuck you with your legitimate factual information!”

Go on then. How do we replace the patent system whilst still acknowledging mental effort and research as being valued forms of work? Tell me all about it mate, I’m interested in your ideas as you’re so convinced it’s all a big con.

I said they’re wonderful, not that they’re perfect. Clearly you need to work on your reading comprehension. The alternative is giant corporations stealing everybody’s ideas without anybody trying to stop them in any way.

Fuck off corpo.

Cringe. One day you’ll have to grow up and get a real job. Then you’ll look back at how embarrassingly assured you were of having the answers to everything after real life smacks you in the face and makes you realise you don’t know shit.

Everyone in this thread is downvoting me because they are trying to out Marxist each other. I have never once claimed the patent system is perfect, but the people in this thread clearly don’t actually understand what is required to even receive a patent.

It’s typical, people know what systems they are against but never know what they are actually for. People say patents are unfair but never propose viable alternatives. The political analysis on Lemmy is frankly juvenile and utopic. People base their opinions on what team they support rather than any sort of analysis of the problem. Populism is rife here and people gravitate toards populist narratives in lieu of thinking. I’m very glad the demography of Lemmy is not representative of society at large.

Not worth it mate. People will find all kinds of post hoc ways to justify the fact that they want to use the tech that others have developed for free.

Maybe so, but nearly everybody in this thread is irritatingly wrong on how intellectual property works as a concept and in practice.

It’s only when you read internet comments on something you actually specialise in that you realise the average commenter is woefully misinformed.

Regardless, if R* decide not to license the tech that is their prerogative as they created it.

Perhaps you should try reading what I actually said instead of what you thought I said.

It literally is theft, theft is a well defined legal concept.

It’s a daily curse.

Novelty is assessed against all publicly disclosed prior art, not just the stuff that has been patented.

If I publish content on a webpage that could be used as prior art later on assessing novelty.

If I invent a special lawnmower and only show my friends and family and never sell it or patent it, that could still count as public disclosure and be used against anyone wishing to patent a similar lawnmower.

I work in patents. If it wasn’t novel it wouldn’t be granted, believe me.

My experience with clients has led me to never trust lay people’s judgements on what is or is not novel.

Feel free to actually read the examiner’s comments in this patent application for an actually full understanding of the process

Or better still if you think you are able to assess novelty though a 5 minute cursory read of a patent without any reference to prior art, feel free to do my job for me. You’re clearly much more efficient and unbiased and definitely aren’t cutting any corners in your evaluation. Both in understanding the law and understanding how to assess novelty in a proper way.

Open source software is different due to informed consent. When working on an OS project you are doing it out of altruism and/or fun, fully realising that you will never be compensated for this work. That doesn’t mean software devs should never be paid and work for free indefinitely on anything they do. Its still a skill that should be compensated for.