Talk:Person having ordinary skill in the art
|A fact from Person having ordinary skill in the art appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 6 October 2004. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
Here's my proposed framework:
- blah ... blah ...
I replaced the following paragraph:
Since patent laws around the world are getting more and more similar with each other thanks to the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and other international intellectual property treaties, the PHOSITA test and its variants are now used in many countries other than the United States.
This is typically US-centric. The PHOSITA test is obvious and has been present in other countries' patent laws from the beginning.
And, the contributer touched, probably unknowingly, a hot political discussion in the EU, concerning whether we want more similarity with US patent law. After all, many aspects of patent laws are similar in most countries of the world with the exception of the US -- most notably the treatment of prior art (most countries do not allow the so-called "lab book proof": prior art only counts when published) and the patentability of algorithms and business procedures (only in the US, whether we want that in the EU is currently a large debate and a disagreement between European Parliament and European Comission)
Simon A. 14:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks to your valuable correction. I did this section in a hurry because I really would like to see it expanded (and I just want to finish it so I can post that stupid illustration). I did not have time to check when was the PHOSITA test first legislated in the U.S. I am also unsure of the evolution of this idea in the Continental Europe. Thank you for your correction.
- The "lab book evidence" is a part of the U.S.-only "first to invent" philosophy. I do hope the U.S. could get rid of it just like the rest of us. It's also amusing to me to see the current requirement of "clear and convincing evidence" to invalidate a patent in court. If they do allow prior art such as "lab book evidence" or those published shortly after the filing date, I think they may want to lower the requirement to "preponderance of the evidence" which is currently proposed by the USITC. -- Toytoy 15:49, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
PHOSITAs outside the United States
Replaced Any reasonable patent legislation should not allow for the patentability of something obvious. with Practically all patent legislations do not allow for the patentability of something obvious.
Sounds more NPOV and I suspect it to be true. About the word 'formulastions', I cannot find it on dictionary.com or on wikipedia. Google suggests 'formulations', and that sounds right to me, so I'll replace it with that. If some other word was meant then correct it :-) --Dyss 19:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, I also forgot, what is that picture supposed to be? --Dyss 19:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If I had a hammer, I'd.. uh.. what?
What's the point of the hammer analogy? I find it confusing and unencyclopedic. It is just trying to say that PHOSITA is a concept that is used in many countries and gets the job done? Or is it actually about patenting hammers? Is it necessary? Can it be reworded or clarified? Generally I don't think extended analogy is really very encyclopedic, or often very clear... --Fastfission 04:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also, could someone come up with some examples -- i.e. a hypothetical invention that wouldn't pass PHOSITA hypothetically, or maybe something that people have criticized specifically? Right now it sounds alright but it's hard for me to visualize what level of "obviousness" a PHOSITA might have, a good example might do the trick. --Fastfission 04:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- OK, I was thinking about the song and got carried away. Now how about some nails? Ha! -- Toytoy 04:56, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Robin JACOB (2009), The skilled man (Special edition 1 of OJ EPO ed.), p. 83, retrieved 5 Mai 2010 Check date values in:
|accessdate= (help) called this person a nerd with reference to UK  EWCA Civ 281. The following two articles by Bernard CORBOZ and Graham ASHLEY might be of interest for Swiss and EPO term definitions. --Swen (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)