patents, Re: Multi-user Debian

[cls-du@truffula.sj.ca.us]

"csj" wrote:
> Just because something's obvious doesn't mean it can't be
> patented.

That's true today, but only because the USPTO is broken.
Long ago, when they were doing their job, the rules were:
1.  No prior art
2.  Not "obvious to anyone skilled in the art"
3.  Useful and valuable.

#2 meant you couldn't patent routine solutions to common
problems, only truly ingenious ones.  Cleverness was
subject to the "reasonable person" test.

#1 meant you couldn't patent something that had already
been described by someone else, but it also meant
you couldn't patent something you observed in nature
or in human culture.
That meant, among other things, mathematical algorithms
couldn't be patented, because mathematics are discovered
in nature, not invented.  It also meant biological
features such as genetic expressions.  This rule 
was reversed when the courts added a new category,
the "use patent", where you patent *the use of* something
found in nature.  Somehow prior art was overlooked
in use patents, and it is now possible to observe
primitive cultures using some herbal remedy they have
been using for hundreds of years, and run home and
patent the use of that herb to treat the same malady.

It's completely out of control.  Be afraid that someone
will patent the act of typing on a keyboard, or
of breathing in and out, and try to charge you a royalty.


-- 
Cameron
US Patent #5,663,634