decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Perhaps.... | 200 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Perhaps....
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT

True, the re-sale would not benefit the inventor... but the proceeds from the original sale would. Additionally, one would expect to negotiate a much higher payment for a full sale as opposed to only licensing.

And then there's the potential added liabilities the inventor may not want with a unique licensing (can't remember the exact term, where the inventor only licenses to a single entity). If the licensee decided that third party X infringed and that the inventor was derelict in his duties to enforce, the licensee could then sue the inventor for possible breach of contract - depending on the contract terms of course. Meaning: a troll will find a way to abuse the system even if it's by forcing someone else to act in that abuse.

I think the bottom line is simple:

    There are those that would abuse the litigation process as a form of blackmail.
Unfortunately, I don't believe placing limitations on the inventor will be the correct way to solve such problems.

I think one correct method to limit the effect of patent trolling (in specific) would be to remove the opening of patents when the words "anything under the sun" were added. Bring back the more stringent requirements that "not all inventions are deserving of the monopoly that patent protection grants". I've said it before and I'll say it again: it was a sad day when the Thomas Jefferson's no longer were the patent examiners.

That would just be one step. Another step is for the USPTO to hire "practiced individuals in the art" and see if they can build the "invention". If it can't be built, then the inventor must supply a working model. If the inventor can't supply such a working model, the invention is denied.

This would have three effects:

First: it confirms the invention is described in sufficient detail that a practitioner in the art can duplicate the invention.

Second: At this time, I think there's a very wide door open where someone could claim to have built the warp engine when not even they could build the technology because the knowledge and materials required are simply outside the scope of modern science. This would prevent claims to an invention that simply is not possible under current knowledge. If it's not patented, others would feel much more free to perform their own R&D into the technology thereby driving the inventive juices rather then stifling them.

Third: It would clearly show those simpler inventions that could "be done in their entirety within the mind".

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Perhaps.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 07:11 PM EDT
  • Perhaps.... - Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 11:13 PM EDT
  • Perhaps.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 12:50 AM EDT
  • Perhaps.... - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 03:56 PM EDT
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )