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
Why can't the owner sell his rights? | 200 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Why can't the owner sell his rights?
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 04:42 PM EDT
As the idea of the patent is to benefit and protect the inventor only the
inventor should be allowed the ownership of the patent. If the inventor sold a
patent then it was sold on again that re-sale would not benefit the inventor and
so falls foul of the purpose of a patent. The inventor could achieve the same
effect of selling by licensing so there is no need for a sale. Further, the
license to use would allow the other party to utilise the invention but not
troll, any claim would be down to the inventor. The problem of the inventor not
being financially able to defend his claim should be dealt with separately such
as through a patent court. Allowing patents to be sold to parties with enough
finance to troll is something that needs to be stamped out.

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Perhaps.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT
    • 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
Errrrr...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 07:00 PM EDT
A "right" is not property.

Its that sort of thinking that created this whole mess.

Patents and copyrights convey rights to a creator/inventor, specifically to give
them time to market. This was designed to prevent an upstart with better funding
from beating them to the punch.

If the inventor/creator is unable or unwilling to exercise that right, then the
opportunity should be left available to someone else to try. The original
inventor can still sell his "property"; i.e. whatever notes, parts
processes etc he has done along the way, those certainly may have value to
someone. What he should not be allowed to sell is the patent or copyright.
That should be up to the next person to attempt said invention to acquire their
own.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )