@design_law Unlearning writing rules takes time. Patent specs (not even getting to claim wording) do not get evaluated by normal writing rules -- only 112, support for claim interpretation, disclaimers, and the like.
Further to this question, do people develop relationships with a searcher so that the searcher can appreciate the terms of art in the technology, know the competitors, etc.?
And speaking of unseens, what prevents generic manuf's from making off-patent drugs to compete with those said to have new patents based on trivial changes? Is it there a regulatory reason (incl insurance issues), reluctance of MDs to prescribe anything other than the latest?
This Polk Wagner thread re patent evergreening is much better than the NYT Op piece.
We should want a system that promotes not only breakthrough discoveries but also step-by-step development.
So the @nytimes Editorial today is entitled "Save America's Patent System." The thrust is that the patent system is badly in need of reform. True! But the animating examples throughout the editorial are from the pharmaceutical industry. This is problematic. A thread: π§΅ 1/
The above breezy statements about 'trivial advances' and sufficient incentives are made without evidence.
Not to be dramatic, but incorrect incentives result in drugs and procedures not developed, which would go unseen.
@JuliaAngwin@tom_cardoso@dmehro@ASankin "In a world of big data, anecdotes just donβt prove it anymore. In the old days as journalists we could write three anecdotes and thatβs a trend. And no longer we can do that.β @JuliaAngwin#ijf22
@zoobab @sxpert1 @mkoivuka Dead for 150 years. I understand some of the arguments against patent protection for software, but isn't a flowchart/algorithm close to a working algorithm already?