|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 04:10 AM EDT |
I think that would work for a week or two. Then the patent trolls would buy up
tiny factories or sweatshops, probably via an easily-divested subsidiary and
probably overseas, with the sole purpose of making almost-functional products
that (sort of) practise the patents. These products would be briefly offered
for sale on an obscure website, with one or two examples bought by the troll's
CEO's spouse, then conveniently disappear as the poor 'innovative' company got
pushed out by all those evil, communist, baby-eating IP violators.
The now-defunct factory would, of course, be immediately repurposed to
'practise' another patent for another of the troll's proxies. Compared to the
lawyers' salaries, the 'practising' part of the company would cost small
change.
-O4W[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 07:57 AM EDT |
Most inventions are improvements to an existing device. The improvement often
can't be market separately and the inventor is in no position to make and sell
the existing device.
An individual inventor invented the intermittent windshield wiper. There is no
after-market for a wiper and motor assembly that requires ripping out the
factory wipers. The inventor showed it to an auto manufacturer who did not
license it, but came out with a copy the next year. He sued and got paid.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hAckz0r on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
| a better solution would be to only allow licencing by the origional developer.
if it can not wind up in the hands of a patent troll then it would not be the
kind of threat that it currently is. this still allows for the constitutional
purpose of providing incentives to invent, but removes the threat from trolls
forming independent extortion rings. only the develloper could sue so the threat
is minimized.
---
DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a
"technology" its only 'logically' infeasible. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Saturday, June 09 2012 @ 02:21 AM EDT |
It would draw a few teeth if the law provided for those who did settle to be
able to reopen the case when a patent gets invalidated and get their money
back.
Not every time, maybe, but at the court's discretion.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
