just_n_examiner (just_n_examiner) wrote,

Another Idiotic Patent Article

Yet another one of those articles detailing all that is wrong with the PTO has been published, courtesy of Forbes. Like a great many of its kin, it is basically a brief sound-bite of a story, long on fluff and short on substance and analysis, and of course, it cites the standard four or five tired examples of 'overly obvious' patents.

If someone was truly interested in discussing problems at the PTO, it would be nice if they would do a real story, confining the discussion to patents that actually have the potential to cause problems (anybody been sued for exercising their cat with a laser pointer lately?), and they also might happen to mention the fact that examiners cannot simply wave their hands, say that something is obvious, and be done with it. Anybody out there know where I might be able to get ahold of some prior art that teaches swinging sideways on a swing? No, me neither.

Instead, I keep seeing what amounts to a carbon copy of the same ~300-word article published in various forums again and again, about every 2 or 3 months.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.