I enjoyed your discussion and felt it was a useful overview
appropriate to the
topic. However, I have a couple of
observations to make...
the
US Constitution ... says that the
inventor should be rewarded for the value of
the invention
because of the work and skill necessary to produce that
specific
invention.
I would appreciate it if you could be more
specific here,
as what follows derives from this. How is this worded in the
Constitution? How would you differentiate "the work and
skill necessary to
produce that specific invention" from
"Sweat of the brow" intellectual property
law doctrine as
related to copyright law? (This doctrine was rejected in the
US).
By agreeing to base 'damages' on a recreation
of the
licensing negotiation that would have taken place had
the parties actually
negotiated is the court accepting that
the Constitution and the intrinsic value
of the patented
invention count for nothing and that the commercial value is
what is important.
I am not sure I follow your distinction
between "the
intrinsic value of the patented invention" and its
"commercial
value". A patent has no intrinsic value. In
fact, the value of anything is only
equal to what the market
will bear. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
