Re: [dvd-discuss] Celebs against shorter patent duration

[Jeremy Erwin <jerwin(at)ponymail.com>]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 11:48  AM, Dean Sanchez wrote:

> I also don't have a problem with patenting a specific implementation 
> of idea that results in a physical object. The founders envisioned 
> patents as more important - that's why originally the timeframe on 
> patents were longer than copyrights.  A patent was the working, 
> physical expression of an idea.   I do have a problem with the current 
> patent process that allows the patenting of ideas without 
> implementation and the patenting of algorithms (software).  Thus you 
> get such things as 'submarine' patents that are an impediment to 
> progress; just the opposite  result of what was intended by the 
> founders.  The patent office used to reject perpetual motion machines 
> as people were unable to provide a working example.  You would 
> probably be able to get one accepted, now.
 From http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/models.htm

"Models or exhibits are not required in most patent applications since 
the description of the invention in the specification and the drawings 
must be sufficiently full, clear, and complete and capable of being 
understood to disclose the invention without the aid of a model.

A working model, or other physical exhibit, may be required by the 
Office if deemed necessary. This is not done very often. A working 
model may be requested in the case of applications for patent for 
alleged perpetual motion devices.

When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the applicant 
may be required to furnish specimens of the composition, or of its 
ingredients or intermediates, for inspection or experiment. If the 
invention is a microbiological invention, a deposit of the 
micro-organism involved is required.
"