Yes, granted patents need more oversight. But many valid patents are not descriptive of physical objects.
Should you not be able to patent a new metallic alloy? A new forming process? A new machining method? A new polymeric crosslinking process?
Many process patents must be written on a fine edge: Too specific, and someone will simply find a slightly different way to do it. Too broad, and it is meaningless.
It may be possible to implement a novel, new idea with many different physical things. How do you adequately protect the idea and the time devoted to developing it?
A new alloy? Yes as it is in fact a physical thing. Even patent
A method of making it. If I figure out a differnet method my method should not be covered because you vaguely mentioned "and methods of creating said alloy" in your application. Your patent however should not cover other alloys with similar properties. If you created super conductor alloy using chlorine and I realize that a similar alloy might be made using Iodine or Flourine my alloys should not be covered by your patents even though your alloy discovery provoked mine as the actual material is different.
A machining method. Possibly if it is in fact something new, unique and non obvious. (Unlike the recent patent on how to use a swing).
The polymeric crosslinking would depend a lot on how it was found and occured. For example if you discovered that the polymer we sell has that crosslinking (occuring as an unforeseen and unknown side effect of our manufacturing) should we have any liability for your patent? Should you patent be valid if research were then to show we were (unknowingly) producing those crosslinks years before you applied for your patent?
Consider the Microsoft FAT patent it covers the DOS file system but was applied for after the year 2000. The DOS file system and variants have been around for 20 years (MINIMUM) before the patent was applied for.
Patents of (natural) genes. Patent moving those genes to a different organism to generate a new drug and I could agree. Patent a method to activate or deactivate the gene no problem but I can't agree that you could patent a gene that has been around for thousands of years (possible 100s of millions if your not a creationist).
Patent on a concept like Amazons "1 click" patent no. Patent on a specific (non obvious way) to handle it OK.
One final thing. In the U.S. apparently if a patent is found to be invalid you are STILL liable to pay damages up to the point where it was invalidated. Your patent is bogus and I
still have to pay you? RIM just got burned on that for the Blackberry.
Topic: Patents in the U.S. Supreme Court (Read 7353 times)