Design Patent Granted... On A Toothpick
|
|
|
Comments (3)
Well said, Bob. I couldn't agree more!
Remember, though, that this is a design patent. For design patents obviousness doesn't matter; visual originality/uniqueness is all that matters. Design patents are sort of like short term trademarks. They don't really have much to do with utility patents at all. Whether the ornamentation on these toothpicks is unique enough to warrant patent protection is still debatable.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post

First, the wording. It has to be as opaque and legalistic as possible.
Then, the patent office clerk has to not think of anything that matches. Thus the requirement for it to be opaque.
If the clerk can't see an obvious reason to block it, the patent is granted, and the actual work in prior art and obviousness is hammered out by lots of lawyers making lots of money.
There is no repercussion to the bureaucrats who grant bogus patents.
The patent system is a lawyer full-employment program. Nothing more.
Abolish it.