From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 13:49:35 +0800
To: "Vin McLellan" <brownrk1@texaco.com>
Subject: RE: Rivest Patent
In-Reply-To: <v04003a09b278d1158ded@[198.115.179.81]>
Message-ID: <019b01be15d3$818348a0$a3283480@games>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> >I have no idea if Watt had a patent on the steam governor. But I bet he
> >didn't try to take one out on Boyle's Law.

I seem to recall that he tried to patent the idea of feedback -
and was refused. He got the govenor patent though.

I think the biggest problems are not so much in the extensions
to the internationally accepted scope of patentability that the
US patent office has uniquely indulged in in the past but the
more recent accretions. Business models and experimental data
are now being allowed - what possible justification can there
be for giving the first person to mechanically sequence a piece
of DNA exclusive commercial rights to exploit that knowledge.

Ulitmately the US PTO has become an international object of
ridicule and contempt. The PTO operates under a condition of
moral hazard - it knows that it is likely to be sued for refusing
a patent but cannot be sued for incompetently (or for that
matter even maliciously granting one).

One enterprising chappie even patented PEM - using the RFC as
a reference in the claim! There are numerous examples of
similar negligence. I can provide several examples of US patents
issued with identical independent claims, in one case near 
identicaly worded.

Rather than debate the PTO's actions of 20 years ago it would seem
more appropriate to discuss their current actions. 

		Phill