Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] EVO status...was: (open-source like hardware)
From: Joe Pfeiffer (pfeiffer_AT_cs.nmsu.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 18 2002 - 22:17:08 EET
Dan Hollis writes:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> > IANAL, but as near as I can tell the USPTO has almost completely given
> > up on their responsibility to actually evaluate patents before
> > granting them. The philosophy seems to be that they'll let anything
> > go through, and if somebody doesn't like it let the courts sort it out.
>
> IMHO the individual examiners should be held liable if the patent is found
> invalid due to prior art.
A good idea in principle, but given the amounts of money involved
you'd never be able to hire another examiner...
Something else I should mention -- it's also my understanding that, as
you'd expect, patent law varies a lot from country to country. So
even if I'm right in my recollections of how things work, that's
limited to US law, and a Lithuanian (picked because I don't think the
list has anyone from there) could very well remember things completely
opposite and also be correct.
-- Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 22:10:06 EET