▲ | adrian_b a day ago | |||||||
I think that you have not read many patents. There have been patents that are the result of hard work, but there is a deluge of patents that contain only ideas that are so obvious that nobody was shameless enough to attempt to patent them before. Moreover the majority of patents contain extraordinarily broad claims, which cover many things that the authors of the patent have never succeeded to make, but they include the claims in the patent with the hope that someone else will find a way to make those things and then they will reveal the patent and blackmail those who have actually made a real device. In the old times, for a patent to be granted there was a condition to present a working prototype embodying the claims of the patent. Unfortunately this condition has gone a long time ago, otherwise it would have filtered most ridiculous patent claims. | ||||||||
▲ | pinkmuffinere a day ago | parent [-] | |||||||
These sorts of patents do exist, but they are not made “correctly”. Patents are supposed to contain novel ideas that are not obvious to experienced practitioners in the field. I think I agree with your criticism, except I feel it is a criticism of the execution of the law/system, rather than the law itself. | ||||||||
|