Difference between revisions of "Raising examination standards"
({{navbox}}) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{navbox}}{{dud}} |
| − | |||
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. | ||
| − | 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. | + | 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''". | 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''". | ||
| Line 12: | Line 11: | ||
* [[Quality of software patents is particularly bad]] | * [[Quality of software patents is particularly bad]] | ||
* [[Patent standards here are higher than in the USA]] - a myth for most countries | * [[Patent standards here are higher than in the USA]] - a myth for most countries | ||
| + | * [[Patent review by the public]] | ||
* (USA) [[The Patent Reform Act]] | * (USA) [[The Patent Reform Act]] | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{footer}} |
[[Category:Minor ways to also fight software patents]] | [[Category:Minor ways to also fight software patents]] | ||
[[Category:non-solutions]] | [[Category:non-solutions]] | ||
Revision as of 19:03, 13 May 2010
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
- Duds and non-solutions
- Quality of software patents is particularly bad
- Patent standards here are higher than in the USA - a myth for most countries
- Patent review by the public
- (USA) The Patent Reform Act
External links
- gnu.org: Patent Reform Is Not Enough
