Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>>I don't see any way around this except for removing patents 
>>altogether.
> 
> 
> IMHO the one who files the patent should pay for the prior art research.
> If this is costly so be it: it will at least discourage filing trivial
> patents.

And yet Gordon Gould, via Patlex corp, was able to file a patent
for the laser in the 1980's because his notarized laboratory notebook
from 1957 showed that he had 'invented' all the applications
for 'coherent' light, which didn't exist until Bell Labs
made a working laser in 1963? Patlex made millions enforcing
it's rights to the 'laser' and all it's applications.

http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/ElectronicFrontier/LaserPatentWars

"Gordon Gould, then a 37-year-old graduate student
working with Polykarp Kusch, also became intrigued by the idea. While Schawlow
and Townes analyzed the possibilities carefully with the intent of publishing
the results in a scholarly journal, Gould poured his ideas into a notebook and
had it notarized so he could apply for a patent."

So why isn't Arthur C. Clarke rich from the thousands of
infringements of the geosynchronous sallite 'invention'.

The patent system is thoroughly broken when only the rich
can afford to get a patent, and more importantly, enforce
their rights to it.

Robert
unrewarded "work for hire".

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist