|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 04:24 AM EDT |
PO must fully compensate victims of invalid grants and the same compensation be
made by the perpetrator. That would concentrate minds.
Lawyers fees to be capped well below the present telephone number figures and
borne by the loser.
Disband the current Office and build a new, properly funded and staffed outfit
with the technical expertise to do the job. Other nations seem to manage, why
not the US?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Too Weak - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 04:52 AM EDT
- Sue the Patent Office? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 07:24 AM EDT
- A Sugestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 08:37 AM EDT
- A Sugestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 09:04 AM EDT
- A Sugestion - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT
- A Sugestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 11:21 AM EDT
- A Sugestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 04:45 AM EDT
- A Sugestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 09 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
Change the law so that:
- Patent duration lasts from filing date
regardless of when the patent is published or finally granted
That makes it
less useful to withhold publication of the patent and/or constantly re-tweaking
the patent to delay the start of the monopoly period.
- Prior art and
infringement date starts from when the patent is published, made publically
available.
That should deal with submarine patents - only once the public
is made aware of the invention can infringement have taken place; similarly
prior art cannot know of the invention before it is published.
A published
paper is taken as its publication date as comparison for prior art, not when it
was written or submitted; so why should patents be any different?
- If a
patent is tweaked and re-published, the last publication date of the patent is
taken as the date for prior art and infringement
Who's to say that the
patent hasn't been tweaked to look like something published between it's filing
(or previous publication date) and the later filing? Simple solution: all prior
art and infringement are effective from the last date the patent is published
(made public) before granting.
- If a patent does not describe in clear and
exact terms (for one skilled in the art) it is automatically rejected with
prejudice and the details enter the public domain as of its filing
date
Can't hide claims in broad legalese! (see 6 below)
- When a patent
expires, the details enter the public domain as if at the filing date.
Part
of the deal to gain a government backed monopoly for a limited time and to
encourage the enhancement of the "sciences" once that monopoly time is
over.
- If a patent fails, the details enter the public domain dated as if at
the filing date
Simples: you should have made sure your invention was
novel, etc and correctly described.
This includes patents that are not
granted within the monopoly period of the filing date - technology can be said
to have moved on since then and so to enhance the "sciences", your failed patent
is automatically made public domain (as of the filing date) so that perhaps
someone could make something of it.
- Should prior art be found that makes the
granted patent invalid, it is presumed that it should have been known and the
patent holder acted negligently and the patent is made invalid as of the filing
date
See below regarding liability of the holder
- Any licensing of an
invalid, or invalidated, patent is considered wilful fraud
The patent
holder is liable to repay the licensing fees, and triple the fees as damages (as
it is considered wilful).
- Any litigation regarding a patent that is
invalid or invalidated, is considered wilful fraud and vexatious
litigation
The patent holder is liable to repay the expenses, and triple
the expenses as damages (as it is considered wilful)
- A liability record is
required to be kept with the patent
Specifically noting dates of
transference of patent - once you receive a patent you will be come liable for
all licensing and expenses (including any previous due to defaulting by the
previous holder) until you can show to pass it on.
An invalid or
invalidated patent should not have adversely affected anyone and anyone who was
should be compensated: by having their loss restored and then triple the loss
paid to them as compensation for wilful fraudulent aggravation against them by
the "patent" holder.
It's not too much to ask that if you're going to get a
government backed monopoly, that it had better be a proper monopoly and if it's
not then it can be considered wilful misuse of government backed monopoly and be
severely punished.
If it is reasonable that someone who reads a patent is
deemed to have wilfully infringed it and so pay triple damages, then it is just
as reasonable to consider that anyone who has used an invalid, or invalidated,
patent for gain to pay triple damages.
The liability for this punishment
stays with the patent holder at the time the liability was made. If that holder
cannot satisfy the liability it is transferred to the next holder in the chain
towards the current holder.
I can but dream about the punishment for
misusing a government backed monopoly...Oh well, back to reality... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jonathon on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
Simpler solution:
Require a patent model to accompany every patent application.
No patent model means no patent.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
