I was going to say that I don't think they make any effort to determine how worthy a patent is or to check prior art because that would be so judgemental we probably don't want them to do that anyway.
But a quick check of
Wikipedia tells us that <my emphasis added>
Quote:
|
The United States Patent and Trademark Office, at least in theory, will not allow a claim in a patent application unless that claim is supported by the disclosure of the specification. In addition, the patent office will not, also in theory, allow a patent claim unless it is distinguishable over the subject matter that existed in the art before the invention, or in the "prior art." If a claim in a patent application is not supported by the disclosure of the patent specification, or if such a claim would cover the prior art, it is the obligation of the patent examiner to reject it.
|
and
Quote:
Generally, patents are enforced only through civil lawsuits. An owner of a United States patent who believes that another has infringed his or her patent may bring an action for patent infringement in a United States federal court. Typically, the patent owner will seek monetary compensation for past infringement, and will seek an injunction prohibiting the defendant from engaging in future acts of infringement. In order to prove infringement, the patent owner must establish that the accused infringer practices all of the requirements of at least one of the claims of the patent.
An important limitation on the ability of a patent owner to successfully assert his or her patent in civil litigation is the accused infringer's right to challenge the validity of that patent. Civil courts hearing patent cases can and often do declare patents invalid. A patent claim may be held invalid because, among other things, the claim is not supported by the specification, or because the claim 'reads' upon the prior art. If a defendant succeeds in demonstrating that a patent is invalid, he or she will not be held to infringe that patent. In the United States, proving patent invalidity can be difficult. United States Courts typically presume that the patent office conducts the review of patent applications competently. Patents are consequently presumed valid unless proved to be invalid by clear and convincing evidence.
The vast majority of patent rights, however, are not determined through litigation, but are resolved privately through patent licensing. Patent licensing agreements are effectively contracts in which the patent owner (the licensor) agrees not to sue the licensee for infringement of the licensor's patent rights. It is not uncommon for companies engaged in complex technical fields to enter into dozens of license agreements associated with the production of a single product. Moreover, it is equally common for competitors in such fields to license patents to each other under cross-licensing agreements in order to gain access to each other's patents. A cross license agreement could be highly desirable to the mouse trap developers discussed above, for example, because it would permit both parties to profit off each other's inventions.
|
But I can't imagine how the patent office could even pretend to examine everything carefully. And I wonder what criteria they use to determine if something is too basic to claim rights... like when MS tried to patent (maybe successfully?) something simple like, I think, the double click or something equally silly. Even if that wasn't prior art, doesn't it seem like something that just hampers competitive markets if you allow patents on something so simple? But then again, that's a judgemental thing so I don't know how you legislate it unless you just go back to prior art. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer!
