|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 01:35 AM EDT |
I understand: Maybe this is evidence that is it is the very concept of a patent
that is the problem?
To talk to your exact example: When somebody looks at a shoe, they don't
immediately notice that "It's boring" is a problem with it, and
"Add wheels" is a fix.
When somebody needs an LED light that adjusts, they do, however, use the bog
standard way to efficiently adjust power levels: PCM. If they need accuracy,
they follow another bog standard way to provide accuracy: Feedback.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stegu on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 07:50 AM EDT |
I think you may be confusing a patent on a particular
version of roller skates with a patent on the roller
skate as an idea. Has it gone so far that we are
forgetting that a patent is supposed to protect *one*
particular *version* of a thing, not *any* version of
one *kind* of thing?
The idea of "putting wheels to a pair of boots" is
not patentable, and should not be. However, the design
of a particular *way* of putting wheels to a pair of
boots, with clear drawings, is clearly patentable,
and there are probably thousands of patents out there
reading on various design details for roller skates
or inlines. I'm OK with that. You can design around
such patents, or license the original inventor's
patent to save you some trouble. People have been
doing that for a very long time, and it seemed to
work fine, although it got a little bit silly in
the last few decades with, say, thousands of patents
on how to make a wonderful, new and totally unique
(honestly) toothbrush.
It's when patents were granted for abstract ideas
and for general concepts that we got the total mess
we are in today.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
