In terms of patentability, three defining components that we discussed in class is that it must be something that is man-made, novel, and not obvious.
In the constitution, Madison awarded Congress the power to protect the growth of innovation by use of intellectual property. The actual clause in the constitution stated:
"[Congress has the power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
What's troubling about this clause is the term "Discovery," which in our every day use refers more of unearthing something rather than creating something new. This goes against almost the two very defining points of man-made and novel. If it is something that someone unsurfaces, that means that it already exists and it could have been something natural rather than a new develop.
In a recent article, Professor Sean O'Connor of University of Washington stated that the word discovery should not be used to define inventions but rather if something new has "a certain degree of importance." To me, this is the unobvious point that we discuss. The point in which an invention is yes a discovery, as in it is utilizing the current resources that we have but perfecting it to a new creation. The unobvious point is to develop something of "importance" that significantly is created on the reliance of the discovery that the person achieve rather than something that any industry expert can innately recognize.
This point is very important to clarify. Yet at the same putting the definition of obvious in a structured language is a difficult task in itself.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/03/constitution-mean-discoveries.html
I found it interesting that you brought the Constitution into our discussion of what obviousness, as it is the basis of the American legal system and we hadn't discussed it in class yet. The Constitution's protection of "discoveries" is something that I definitely would like to learn about more, as a number of our classmates' blog posts have discussed the concept of biological patents, on genes and naturally occurring proteins. Do you have any more information regarding what the Constitution might imply for these biologically-based patents?
ReplyDelete