Says the guy who says very categorically, "Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are granted."
No, that is not what my argument amounts to. You should read up on logical fallacy.
(1) So what if I'm a poor inventor whose truly patent-deserving idea hasn't yet made money and gets copied by a rich megacorp before I can. Your solution protects the rich, not the risk-taking inventors, the latter being the reason we have patents.
(2) You beg the question.
(3) The USPTO received 500,000 patent applications in 2010. Have you ever read a patent? Do you realize how specialized they one are? You have to be an expert in the field to be able to discern what deserves a patent and what doesn't, and even then it would take one weeks if not months to truly understand the proposed patent and all prior art to render such judgement. The USPTO would need an army of 10,000 (one week per patent) to 100,000 (2-3 months per patent) experts on staff.
No, that is not what my argument amounts to. You should read up on logical fallacy.
(1) So what if I'm a poor inventor whose truly patent-deserving idea hasn't yet made money and gets copied by a rich megacorp before I can. Your solution protects the rich, not the risk-taking inventors, the latter being the reason we have patents.
(2) You beg the question.
(3) The USPTO received 500,000 patent applications in 2010. Have you ever read a patent? Do you realize how specialized they one are? You have to be an expert in the field to be able to discern what deserves a patent and what doesn't, and even then it would take one weeks if not months to truly understand the proposed patent and all prior art to render such judgement. The USPTO would need an army of 10,000 (one week per patent) to 100,000 (2-3 months per patent) experts on staff.