Comments on: Better Patents Through Crowdsourcing http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/better-patents-through-crowdsourcing/ Progressive approaches to science policy Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:25:17 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Kerwin Dunsmore http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/better-patents-through-crowdsourcing/comment-page-1/#comment-2841 Kerwin Dunsmore Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:43:06 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/better-patents-through-crowdsourcing/#comment-2841 Software patents are inherently problematic. As Nancy points out, clear records of prior programming art do not exist in searchable form as they do for non-abstract, nuts-and-bolts inventions. I believe that the USPTO should, with the help of contributor crowd, develop rules to guide them in the software patenting realm. It may result in wholesale invalidation of many software patents already granted, but I think that even the informed crowd cannot "drain the swamp" without the tedious re-sorting existing software patents into specific categories defined by programmers of good will and USPTO employees. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Software patents are inherently problematic. As Nancy points out, clear records of prior programming art do not exist in searchable form as they do for non-abstract, nuts-and-bolts inventions.

I believe that the USPTO should, with the help of contributor crowd, develop rules to guide them in the software patenting realm.
It may result in wholesale invalidation of many software patents already granted, but I think that even the informed crowd cannot “drain the swamp” without the tedious re-sorting existing software patents into specific categories defined by
programmers of good will and USPTO employees.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

]]>