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
That's what patents are | 158 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
That's what patents are
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 12:12 PM EDT

From that right [gov. granted monopoly], inventors are rewarded for inventing through the payment of reasonable royalties, from the sale of their rights or from salaries paid to encourage further invention.

Well that's how it is supposed to work, anyhow. I don't know if you have kept up with the news lately, but UPSTO's process for determining what is an invention worthy of patent is broken. We no longer have any assurance that a claimed invention is actually an invention, and therefor that the claimant is actually an inventor.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Is that you Gene?
Authored by: deck2 on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 02:08 PM EDT
This anonymous has the same opinions as Gene Quinn. What we have here is a
desire to revert to the royal patent to provide monopoly power to a single
entity. The US patent system was not intended to do that.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That's what patents are
Authored by: Mikkel on Saturday, July 14 2012 @ 03:19 PM EDT
The problem is that they are being used to keep potential competitors out of the
market, and not just to keep them from using your patented invention.

You can build a device that competes with the patent holder's product, but does
not use his patent. You are then sued for infringing the patent. The cost of
proving you are not infringing puts you out of business. Or you may be able to
license the patent, and pay a "tax" on each unit produced, even though
you do not use it.

This is not what patents are for, but it how they are being used. That is the
problem.

[ 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 )