I know you don’t want to comment on specifics of recent US law news but what might be useful to the community is a discussion on what patent law really says. There is a disconnect (often emotional) between the true nature of such laws and the laypersons understanding. I for one would like to know why patent law isn’t more like trademark law where one has to actively defend a trademark or risk losing it. Obviousness of a method is hard to prove over the lifespan of a patent. As time goes on and more people start accepting a certain method as being commonplace (and hence obvious to those concerned) does that factor at all into the law? What is the metric for obviousness?

The reason I have to ask here is there really are few resources a person has access to to research these issues without going to law school - something I personally have considered and then rejected at this point in life. This is not a desire to create some sort of grass roots campaign against cases in the court system. I’ll leave the lawyering to the lawyers. This is more of a hacker’s desire to understand the rules that govern the world around him. So far, where the law is concerned, it seems an unobtainable goal for your average Joe citizen.

[read this post in: ar de es fr it ja ko pt ru zh-CN ]