|
|
|
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
