|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 08:16 AM EST |
One argument suggests the price of the patent
licence should not
be higher then the component that does
the bigger action where some little
elements would be
patented. Somewhat my feeling
also.
Suppose you are a brilliant inventor, and after much
effort, you invent a perpetual motion machine that really
works. You
immediately patent it, and begin to sell your
machine as an electrical
generator. Suppose these sell like
hot cakes. Because of it's popularity, you
realize vast
economies of scale in it's manufacture, and are able to drop
the
price down to a few dollars.
Someone wants to license the perpetual
motion machine
component of the generator from you so he can make a
variation
on the
product. If he insists the value of such a license should be
tied to
the cost of the machines you sell, would you be
moved by such an argument? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 05:50 PM EST |
If Motorola could show that it's patents are no worse then the ones others, like
MS and Apple, are using in their strategies, this would somewhat turn into the
process of the patent system.
Every negative point mentioned about Motorola's patents and demands would
reflect on the whole patent system like it is practised now.
Actually, if the court would really fix an amount, and call it the reasonable
maximum, a simple division would give us a factor that would give us how many
times some amounts are beyond any reason. What was Apple asking again?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 07:29 PM EST |
One argument suggests the price of the patent licence should not be
higher then the component that does the bigger action where some little elements
would be
patented.
With pharmaceuticals and many speciality
chemicals, the price of a patent license makes up the bulk of the total cost of
the end product. The raw materials and processing costs are often trivial when
produced on a large scale. So, following your argument would mean overturning
established practice on a very wide scale.
Surely in the
case of software that can be obtained free of charge.
So if I
give away my software I should be able to ignore Microsoft's software patents? I
don't think that Microsoft would be willing to go along with that idea. I think
that you will find that Microsoft's view with regards to patents would be very
self serving. To them, other people's patents are worthless, while their own are
extremely valuable and deserving of protection.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
