Re: A thought about patents

[John Stracke <francis at ecal.com>]

Toerless Eckert wrote:

> Please don't forget that the requirement is just "non-obviousness" for the
> typical person working in the field.

Side note: I think I've been told (by patent lawyers) that it's non-obviousness
for a skilled, even expert practicioner in the field.

> Just split the money someone pays for a patent application equally
> between the patent lawer and the patent office and make both of them get less
> the longer it takes.

Can't be done--at least, not in the US.  A lawyer is hired by the applicant.  It
more or less has to be that way; a lawyer is someone I hire to represent me, to
speak for me in the complex language of the law.  To keep me from hiring whoever
I want to speak for me might well be unconstitutional; it would certainly run
against the common-law tradition (tracing back, oh, 500-100 years).  The Roman
Republic had such a system; only designated people could bring a legal action,
and they could only use prescribed forms of language.  It was a wonderfully
designed form of job security; but it wasn't justice.

--
/================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.  |
|Chief Scientist |===============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |We want forty million helicopters and a dollar!|
|francis at ecal.com|--"Dinosaurs"                                  |
\================================================================/