Hacker News Reader

I would think that by "mundane" Franklin means "not that interesting".

A patent should be novel, non obvious, contain inventive step and useful.

I think that anything that answers that 4 criteria is that interesting by default.

There are some 570 patents for barbed wire. I'm pretty sure only a very select few would consider each one interesting.

That implies that all 570 validly deserve patent protection. Going to go out on a limb here and say that a large chunk of them, if not a majority, should not have been granted.

Look at the BS in the software patents world.. it almost certainly extends to other fields.

The claim is that "novel, non obvious, contain inventive step and useful" implies "interesting". My counter-claim is that the label "interesting" is only going to be true for a very few people. Perhaps even only the inventor.

Even if only 100 of them "deserve" patent protection, how do you conclude that all of them will be interesting? And how many people do you think need to find it interesting?

My underlying point is that patents are nothing to be in awe of. Just because it's patented doesn't mean it's interesting. I get the feeling that you want "interesting" to be a requirement of the patent office. If so, how do you define it?

That is your opinion. And one I'd be is not widely held. "Interesting" is not an objective criteria.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com