Quote: Original post by Sander
No. If several companies are trying to develop the same thing then any patent application should denied because if fails the non-obviousness test.

I'd have to disagree. If 2 companies are trying to produce a time machine and one of them succeeds then I fail to see how this is fails non-obvious. Many companies were trying to produce rocket engines and boeing and Lochheed-martin have many,many patents on rocket engines and fuel even though both of them were trying to do the same thing. How does this in any way make those patents obvious??


I'm starting to realize that your position is very unmoveable:) Perhaps I won't be able to convince you that some software patents are ok, and thats fine:) I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it:)

Cheers
Chris

[Edited by - Obscure on May 5, 2006 4:53:40 PM]

Quote: Original post by chollida1

Quote: Original post by Sander
No. If several companies are trying to develop the same thing then any patent application should denied because if fails the non-obviousness test.

I'd have to disagree. If 2 companies are trying to produce a time machine and one of them succeeds then I fail to see how this is fails non-obvious.

That's not quite the same thing - there could be (hypothetically) more than one way to make a time machine, and you couldn't get a time machine covering any hypothetical time machine.

Yes, if two companies are trying to find out how to make a time machine and only one succeeds, it's fair that they get a patent.

But if two companies are working along the same method independently, but one completes or publishes their invention one day ahead, why should they get a patent?

Quote: Many companies were trying to produce rocket engines and boeing and Lochheed-martin have many,many patents on rocket engines and fuel even though both of them were trying to do the same thing. How does this in any way make those patents obvious??

It's the different between "trying to do the same thing", and "doing the same thing". If another company was working on the same thing anyway, then it shouldn't be considered novel, and doesn't need patents in order to encourage the invention.

Quote: Original post by chollida1
I'm starting to realize that your position is very unmoveable:)

It is, because I fail to see why the whole of the software industry should suffer under patents just because a rare fringe case might benefit from it :-)