|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
I'd subtract the bit about asserting invalid patents
constituting willful fraud - that's probably too much.
Patents, in theory, can serve a useful purpose by preventing
a gigantic company from simply duplicating a smaller
company's product. Asserting a reasonable patent and then
learning about prior art shouldn't be a gigantic risk.
But, I'd add...
1. Don't waste the PTO's time: if rejected for any reason,
forfeit filing fee. Pay again if refiled after revisions.
2. No presumption of validity unless subjected to expensive
review. Charge 1M USD, 500k goes to patent office, 500k goes
to anyone submitting prior art or other convincing evidence
of invalidity. Required prior to claim assertion.
3. Patentholder must post 1k bond. Anyone, for 200 USD fee,
may submit evidence of invalidity. If successful, bond is
forfeited in proportion to claims invalidated.
Unfortunately, none of these remove the 'uncertainty issue'
where there are a ton of probably, but not certainly,
invalid patents that could theoretically be asserted against
any successful endeavor.
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 10:22 PM EDT |
And (even though I'm inventor) I want to see that thought out here, first, so as
to get *better* reform.
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|