The focus of the suggested solution (and most others) is to put another
hurdle in place rather then deal with the underlying problem.
That
doesn't prevent Lawyers from working around those little problems.
For
example:
The Supreme's have said E=MC2 is likely not patentable
due to the restrictions on math being not patentable.
Yet there's at least
one Lawyer willing to obfuscate that with wording such as:
Determining the
amount of energy available by identifying the mass of the object and multiplying
it by the square of the speed of light thereby identifying the amount of energy
available!
To myself, that shows a very clear intent of at least some
Lawyers to play word games in order to get the unpatentable
patentable.
Without figuring out a punishment for the Lawyers willing to
do that, there can be no solution put into place that will work for long. No
solution can work, because:
There's every financial incentive to Lawyers to
play those word games with the golden chest being a chance to actually go to
trial with a patent - the big payoff.
There's no incentive to prevent
Lawyers from those games.
Or at least, in this humble layman's non-legal
view: there doesn't appear to be any disincentive beyond human
ethics.
Philosophically speaking: When the punishments that do exist are
not applied: does a punishment exist?
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
