|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 09:48 PM EDT |
No... we should just make everyone go the spacex route instead. Keep anyone new
technology secret enough that it takes a lot of work to copy. Of course they do
this to stop the Chinese government, who is in there own words there only
serious long-term competitor.
While I agree with practically everyone on groklaw that patents are currently
broken, just removing them completely might create as many issues as it would
solve. For instance R&D would become to expensive to spend money on in most
industries, as anything that came out of it would be immediately copied by
others who didn't spend all that money. Unless of course you could somehow keep
your discovery during R&D secret, but then everyone would have to discover
the same thing wasting huge amounts of resources. When it comes down to it,
patents aren't a black and white issue, kinda like the rest of the world...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 03:47 AM EDT |
except the standard essentials ones
Seems you already
have forgotten the farce of Microsoft buying, bullying and lobbying itself into
an "Office Open XML" "standard" with lots of "to be done like in Microsoft Word"
or "to be thought about later" passages in it.
As long as the standard bodies
can be corrupted in the demonstrated manner, "standard relevant" patents are not
better than the rest. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: globularity on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 03:48 AM EDT |
Patents are a legal restriction on the use of ideas, remove the restriction. It
does not require another law rather the rescinding of an existing one.
Only a lawyer could argue that a restriction on the use of ideas would make the
products of ideas more widely available.
---
Windows vista, a marriage between operating system and trojan horse.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
Innovation should be rewarded and giving the idea to the public should not be a
charitable act. Instead of granting a monopoly to the creator of the idea, give
them a one-time cash incentive. Don't lock ideas up at all unless the creator
wants to make them trade secrets instead of sharing.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: albert on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 11:49 AM EDT |
As I pointed out earlier (the cement honeycomb case), the USPTO policy of
patenting everything is the problem. Their policy on software patents is
infecting 'real' patents now.
Ideally, we should eliminate software patents. Failing that, we should reduce
s/w patents lifetime to one year, and all others to 5 years. This "use 'em
or lose 'em" approach would really kick in the afterburner on R & D.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT |
I favor the following changes:
Time: (Software is different from hardware. If anything, the
span for hardware patents is too short if you approach them
in a straightforwards manner.)
25 years for hardware - from date of application (I'm not
too wild about deliberately delaying patent approval until
there's a decent market.)
10 years for drugs - from date of approval (drug trials can
take a really long time...)
5 years for software - from date of application (Software
has inherently high margins, ramps rapidly, and not a lot of
R&D costs.)
Limitations: (Allowing injunctive relief for valid patents
covering tiny portions of a product's functionality makes
patent trials gigantically risky - and is particularly
inappropriate which use, arguably, thousands of
independently owned patents.)
No injunctive relief unless a single patent contributes >
20% of product value. (So, you can probably get an
injunction for a drug - but definitely not for a cellphone.)
Better guidelines for patent licensing. Basically, cap each
patent at the value derived from it.
Application Procedure: (Currently, the potential value from
jacking around the patent office far exceeds the incentives
offered to the USPTO to do their job.)
(a) Clarity: Patent must be a useful document. (Think
journal article instead of obfuscated legal document.)
(b) Novelty: Patent must not be obvious to someone versed in
the art. (Faced with the same problem, your average person
would do something different and worse.)
(c) Resubmitting with corrections requires a fee that
substantially exceeds the USPTO's costs. Appealing a
rejection requires a bond that is returned only if the
appeal is upheld. Repeated resubmissions involve
substantially increased fees. Previously submitted patent
applications - both accepted and rejected are included in a
database to be used as prior art.
(The USPTO makes money on rejections - unless they are for
bad reasons.)
Assuming that these changes were made, I suspect patents
would become less of a problem than copyright.
--Erwin
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
