Microsoft, Purdue Extend Quantum Computing Partnership To Create More Stable Qubits

Status
Not open for further replies.

virtualban

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2007
1,232
0
19,280
0
As long as they don't go patenting 'method to add 1+1 with qubits', it is fine if they enter the race, even though M$ is maybe the most concentrated embodiment of anticompetitive practices (right alongside Apple).
But, I expect their lawyers will push for that.
Methods of operations in any substrate should not be patentable, but the quantum wetware in the organic heads of workers of the patent office is too slow to understand it, or too bribed to pretend to care.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Herald

Of course they will. Not to defend MS, specifically, but I think it's not helpful to blame the players when the real problem is the rules of the game.


Not sure I agree with this. If the method of carrying out those operations is sufficiently non-obvious and novel, then it should be patentable. Now, the government might intervene if a company insists on unreasonable licensing fees for patents on a fundamental technology that enshrines its monopoly, but I see that as a separate issue than the patentability question.


Actually, I think the problem with the current patent system is that it places too much burden & discretion on the patent office. IMO, the only requirements for receiving a patent should be the filing fees and having a sufficiently clear description of the claims that they can be effectively litigated. Then, the actual decision about a patent's legitimacy (both non-obviousness and novelty) should be decided upon litigation, with the loser paying all the court fees (plus damages, if the defendant is found to be infringing). Should the plaintiff lose on any of the claims, those decisions can be cited in future cases to invalidate the plaintiff's case against further would-be infringers.

So, basically, the only function of a patent would be to grant you a right to sue. But the fact of a patent being issued would have no bearing on your chances of actually winning.

The current system basically requires perfection from the patent office, meaning the examiners would have to be at least as smart, knowledgeable, and diligent as any of the inventors. That's just unrealistic and renders inevitable the sorts of failures we've seen & come to expect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS