|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 12:27 PM EDT |
Non-practicing entity (NPE) invents something. Producing company (PC) makes
something that infringes. NPE sues. PC pays (either pays off NPE, or pays a
lot in lawyer bills).
My measure: What percentage of the time did PC learn how to do what they did
from the patent (even indirectly)? What percentage of the time did PC come up
with it on their own?
That is, is the NPE actually causing progress, or are they just taxing it?
MSS2[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: digger53 on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries.
Securing for a limited time,
not forever. Seems that it's up to the author or inventor to "monetize" his
work. I wonder, if the validity of a patent or copyright transfer to someone
other than the author or inventor has been/could be challenged in court.... PJ?
anyone??
At the least, the patent orofice should be required to demand the
inventor to produce a working copy of the invention. I suspect that would
deep-six a lot of software and 'method" patents. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 07:16 PM EDT |
To be fair, publishing was a (reasonably efficient, all
things considered) method for rewarding authors yet..out of
the price of a hardcover book...(30 USD), authors often got
about 5% - so 90% might be high.
I prefer a simpler question. What patent term for software
patents would maximize utility?
0 years?
1 year?
3 years?
5 years?
10 years?
20 years?
I'm pretty sure it isn't 10 or 20 and I could easily live
with 3.
--Erwin
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|