The blocking patent issue is definitely a real problem with the current patent system. One of the more important aspects of a good patent is to make it broad enough in the first place so that the originator has room to operate. I have seen patents on catalysts that damn near covered the whole periodic table!

Yes, of course, we agree on the fundamental contradiction faced by the USSR in attempting to protect inventions through patents. The fact remains that classical Marxist socialism does recognize the inventor and does advocate for rewards, if only medals for your shirt.

That being as it may, you failed to address the more challenging point:
""Dale, you contradict yourself. You said: "You are clearly incorrect about the XOR being known before the patent was filed. If was created years before as part of a CAD computer system." So, the XOR was known even even before AutoCAD used it is its own CAD systems. I believe that this was, indeed, the point of the AutoCAD complaint: they did not invent it; and neither did the patent claimant. Rather than refuting my point, that validates it. You say that this is just one example, an outlier, not representative of patents in general. Perhaps so." "

To me, the case in point was not an outlier, but exemplary, as you admit. All patents are applications of the second law of thermodynamics: "Have one, you have them all." You painted yourself into a corner. I am sorry that you did. I believe in the existence of intellectual property rights. You seem incapable of defining and defending them. I will have to do the work myself. (It will be copyrighted.)

'Define Abstract.':
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence:
verb |abˈstrakt |
1 consider (something) theoretically or separately from something else:
2 extract or remove (something):
3 make a written summary of (an article or book):
noun |ˈabˌstrakt |
1 a summary of the contents of a book, article, or formal speech:
2 an abstract work of art:
3 ( the abstract ) that which is abstract; the theoretical consideration of something:
Abstract may refer to:
Abstract (law), a summary of a legal document
Abstract (summary), in scientific publishing
Abstract art, artistic works that don't attempt to represent reality or concrete subjects
Abstract object in philosophy
Abstract structure in mathematics
Abstract type in computer science
The property of an abstraction

'By definition an invention is an abstraction,':
An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. The invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating an object or a result. An invention that achieves a completely unique function or result may be a radical breakthrough. Such works are novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field.

I don't really enjoy getting sucked into a semantics battle. I fully understand what an invention and an abstraction are. With that understanding behind me, my statement previous to this still stands:
'I have no problem with the granting of patents for abstract inventions nor protection for intellectual property as long as it can be adequately demonstrated as something that is new. But I maintain that this case is one that is the exception. It was not a new abstract, it was a long recognized business practice - there was nothing new in the computer or computer system applied to the system or process, and the software was simply a step sequence instruction no different than the step sequence applied by a human performing the same practice, ie. there was no evidence of a new algorithm.'

Two hours spent in the library is worth six weeks in the lab. It is one's job to know the existing literature, both journal published and patent literature. Nonetheless, your point is well taken about how the regular person with normal competency struggles with patent law. I often have to get students to "unlearn what they have learned" (said in my best Yoda imitation) with regard to intellectual property.

I make sure my students spend time dealing with patents in several of my engineering courses, db. Florida Tech is talking about starting up a law school, but the only type of law that students would be able to prepare for is patent law. This makes sense, as we are an engineering school.

Actually that is the point. Slaves' right to life is not being protected by the law. Whether the law protects your rights is not the definition of whether you have those rights.

I do think it should be part of an engineering education that students learn the basics of how patents work including claims. You hire an attorney to prepare an important contract don't you?

On a practical basis: the first step is to search patents for inventions that are in a similar space as your invention. This is something that any competent engineer can do. There are important business reasons for doing this, including not wasting engineering resources reinventing the wheel, avoiding liability, and often learning improvements that you can take advantage of. There are academic papers on point that show a startups that understands the patent space (like marketing space) they live in are much more likely to have a successful exit. If you find a patent that appears close then you hire a patent attorney.

Yes USSR tried and it did not work. Patents are property rights not a reward such as a monetary prize. As a result, what the USSR did was call something a patent system when it was not. Words have meanings. Calling a dandelion a rose does not make it a rose.

Once again you don't even understand the basics of patents and physics. Every invention in the history of the world is a combination of KNOWN elements. You know WHY???? Because you can't violate conservation of energy and matter. Based on your non-sense the only thing patentable is black magic. Brilliant.

Dale, you contradict yourself. You said: "You are clearly incorrect about the XOR being known before the patent was filed. If was created years before as part of a CAD computer system." So, the XOR was known even even before AutoCAD used it is its own CAD systems. I believe that this was, indeed, the point of the AutoCAD complaint: they did not invent it; and neither did the patent claimant. Rather than refuting my point, that validates it. You say that this is just one example, an outlier, not representative of patents in general. Perhaps so. Rather than address that, you fire an invective at me, claiming that I am "spreading socialist propaganda". In fact, you seem to know little about socialism in practice:

"By decree of the Central Executive Committee of September, 1924, patent laws were established somewhat similar to those in force before the world war. In December, 1924, a Committee on Inventions was created to carry out the provisions of the patent laws and to conduct the business of the Patent Office.

The Soviet patent laws follow the same general lines as those of Germany, and give similar protection to the inventor. The Soviet Union does not belong to the International Patent Convention. It has, however, a special patent agreement with Germany.

Foreigners may obtain patents on equal terms with the citizens of the U.S.S.R. " -- https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/go...

Apparently, all _socialist_ nations have patents. First show me a (truly) capitalist nation; then show me its patent law. Do you know the play _Rossum's Universal Robots_? It coined the word "robot." When the robots revolt and kill all the humans, they spare the engineer because like them, he works. The story is a parable. Socialists wanted to see inventors honored and rewarded, not exploited by evil capitalists and their corporations. It is easy to question their claim, but they do make it. So, your nasty charge that I am pushing socialism is just an ad hominem attack.

BS Mike you don't know what a non-sequitar is. Property rights are based on creation. All creation starts with the mind and patents protect the creations of the mind, which makes the most basic and fundamental and logically the basis of all property rights.

What a bunch of Nonsense. The purpose of government is to protect the RIGHTS of people. When the founders used the word RIGHT they meant a natural right. Not protecting those rights means that government is not doing its job. See the Declaration of Independence.

You don't understand the purpose of a preamble. A preamble is not limiting in law, it is merely descriptive. In this case of one of the outcomes of protecting inventor's rights is promoting science and the useful arts and all macroeconomic evidence shows they are right.

That is a non-sequitar, Dale. It is a logical error of the most basic class. P-> Q then Q causes P. In other words, you say that patent rights are the BASIS of property rights AND that you cannot have a patent system without property rights. In fact, the logic works in the other direction. Property rights in general are the (putative) basis for (specific) patent rights. By analogy, property rights in general are the basis for specific "air rights" above a building. You are flailing, counselor.

My position is perfectly consistent with the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution *requires* Congress to enact patent laws.

This whole anti-patent line is pushed stealthily by socialists. They know that patents and copyrights are critical for property rights. Much like many socialist ideas they are not upfront about their goals - see the word progressive or the whole environmental movement.

Maph,

We spent a lot of time on this in another post. The anarcho people propose private entities to enforce contracts and other rules. This either makes them a vigilante or a government. Competing enforcement organizations are still organizations allowed to use force and therefor still governments.

Gee not being able to steal other people's property reduces your sales, profit, return. Now that is a good justification for theft.

Not protecting inventions violates the constitution. Your position is inconsistent with the Constitution.

Unfortunately, probably not. That is why many of us have shrugged.

Yes, but there is no such thing as a right to life without the right to property, which is the means to sustain your life.

Let's start with your definition of Novel - what is it? Second of all I know plenty of very smart engineers who look at patents all the time and still have not mastered the art of reading claims. So unless you have passed the patent bar, I am skeptical that you can correctly read the claims.

probably not in our lifetime.

The Bill of Rights are amendments and not part of the Original constitution. The point being that founders considered patent rights very important and totally consistent with Natural Rights.