Hacker News Reader

The thing is, you don't need to build a machine to patent the design. You just need to design it. So you can still try five approaches a day for a hardware invention as you do for software.

I generally agree that picking the right line is hard and that nobody will ever be happy.

View on HN

There used to be a requirement that you had a prototype in order to obtain a patent. I wouldn't mind going back to that requirement.

Maybe, but it's not very tractable to have thousands of prototypes being delivered to the USPTO each day. The point of the patent is to provide all the information required to completely recreate the invention and explain how it works.

Restoring that requirement across the board would have a profound negative impact on the biotech (and likely I would guess, advanced materials) sectors. Think of, for example, discovering a useful small molecule, and wishing to build a moat around it while you do the med chem work for a lead compound.

You have to at least build the compound to do the assay to actually find out that it's useful.

What you describe is the current practice. What I am trying to suggest is that it is reasonable to be able to use a Markush claim for obvious related compounds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com