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

[mickey <mickeym(at)mindspring.com>]

How long ago was the "reduce to practice" requirement dropped? That 
would seem to be the underlying error that allowed things like "method" 
patents, then software patents, and now "text=technology" issues.

mickeym

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.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mickeym [mailto:mickeym@mindspring.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:34 PM
>To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>Subject: [dvd-discuss] Celebs against shorter patent duration
>
>
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64584,00.html
>
>I wasn't aware that there was a bill to shorten the patent duration for 
>drugs, but it doesn't surprise me who else (besides the drug co's) would 
>be against it. I still can't reconcile the huge difference between 
>patent vs copyright duration. I suppose I'm actually okay with the 17 
>year patent, in contrast to the 95+ year copyright.
>
>mickeym
>
>