One requirement for a patent is that the (work) be “nonobvious”. (That is, not something a typical practitioner in the field could/would have done.) Bearing in mind that what seems “obvious” in retrospect may not have been “obvious” before someone made it so, but considering your experience with the lab code and what you’ve learned this term about manipulating digital images, address the question of whether it seems Robert Silvers work was sufficiently “nonobvious” to merit a patent. Is looking back is a fair way to evaluate the question?
Silvers created his own code and uses his own creative process, and yet he finds the need to create a copyright. If his method is as individual as he says, then why does he need to have a patent for it? In my opinion, his action was somewhat unjustified. A patent should protect a method that can be adopted by anyone, and if the specific process can only be carried out by him, why should he have the need to make a patent? His rationale is not very clear.
Here is a link with information about Silvers and his process:
Click here for article (Chicago Tribune)
No comments:
Post a Comment