[FahnRobier]

IANAL, but it looks like he might have a case for prior art, if he published his methods prior to patent being issued.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/inventing/prior-art/

Still, this puts the burden of proof on the person claiming prior art. I'd like to see a reform of patent law that would make the infringing patent holder responsible for the legal fees for proving the prior art, if it's valid.

That would:

1. Force the potential infringer to do a more rigorous search prior to filing the patent.

2. Gives the person with prior art a little more leverage in negotiations.

Am I misguided?

[eru]

Does the author live in the US? As far as I know e.g. European patent law does require not only prior art but also prior publication.

[gridspy]

Who is going to publish something that they consider obvious?

[eru]

An example: Page numbers are considered obvious nowadays, but they are still in a lot of published works.

[gridspy]

Can you name a recent published work wherein the subject is page numbering?

[eru]

Does this matter?

Any book will serve as published prior art against a patent on page numbering. It does not have to be the main subject.

[gridspy]

My point is that there are many small problems which we solve as engineers every day that are too trivial to publish in a paper.

It is all well and good until some moron (genius?) comes along and patents these simple ideas.