ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Raising examination standards"

(Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: * Patent standards here are higher than in the USA - a myth for most countries)
({{navbox}})
Line 1: Line 1:
{{dud}}(Note: [[Risks of supporting partial solutions]])
+
{{dud}}{{navbox}}
  
 
When people talk about '''patent reform''', they are usually referring to proposals to '''raise examination standards''' by making the criteria stricter or tougher, and increasing the resources available to patent examiners.
 
When people talk about '''patent reform''', they are usually referring to proposals to '''raise examination standards''' by making the criteria stricter or tougher, and increasing the resources available to patent examiners.

Revision as of 00:01, 31 March 2010

Red alert.png What this entry documents is not a solution.
This practice may be ineffective or useless in the long term.
ESP's position is that abolition of software patents is the only solution.


When people talk about patent reform, they are usually referring to proposals to raise examination standards by making the criteria stricter or tougher, and increasing the resources available to patent examiners.

The result would be to reduce the number of software patents granted. This would be helpful, but it wouldn't solve the problem. It only takes one software patent to destroy a small business or ruin an interoperability standard.

When encouraging the raising of patent examination standards, it's very important that your work is not misunderstood as showing support for "high quality" software patents. Always phrase your support like: "Raising the standards is a step in the right direction, but even 'high quality' software patents are harmful to society. The right thing to do is get rid of software patents entirely".

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links