Idea Lawyer Blog

See the NYT coverage of the Supreme Court justices discussing the nature of the inventive act. You can read for yourself the age old discussion of "how much creativity is enough" to qualify for the limited 20 year monopoly- a "patent right." Should the standard of what qualifies as an invention be changed? A reader wrote to me about the article, and pointed out at least one legal voice predicting business chaos from any change in the current test for what is "obvious" versus what is "invention", where "business" means "patent holders" and presumably "big business". Now Dear Readers: Should this discussion - or decision- affect those entrepreneurs or venture funded companies as they pursue the time-honored tradition of bolstering their chances of economic viability by applying for intellectual property rights? Absolutely not. Neglecting to allocate some resources for identifing company-created patent prospects is tantmount to instructing your CPA to stop seeking tax advantages because its not clear what the IRS may do. Stay bold! Keep creating; keep applying for proprietary rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/business/29bizcourt.html?ex=1165899600&en=8a9d5bd559b34ac8&ei=5070&emc=eta1