|
|
|
| Authored by: ukjaybrat on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 08:52 AM EST |
thanks, could not have said it better myself.
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jkrise on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:50 AM EST |
The PTO has a limited amount of time to inspect each patent (I believe it's
around a day per patent).
This is the exact problem, and in the
rest of your post, you have detailed how to DEAL with the problem. What I am
advocating is, how to solve the problem? The fact that the PTO has just 1 day to
inspect a patent, implies that innovation is happening at a rapid pace these
days. So a roughly 2-decade monopoly on a patent in these modern days; is
totally not justified, since entire businesses and ecosystems are impacted by
such long term monopolies.
Consider that there are about 2 billion
Windows devices worldwide, in about 2 decades. In just 2 more years, it is
projected that there could be more than 2.5 billion Android devices, surpassing
Windows devices.
So a patent that cripples Android for 2 decades means
ENORMOUS incalculable harm to the progress of science and arts, which is the
raisson d'etre of patents.
So the cure to the PTO having just 1 day
to inspect a patent application, is to drastically reduce the number of
applications, rather than hastily issuing dubious patents, re-examining and
rejecting them, and further re-examining and validating a limited number of
claims.
To reduce the number of patents filed, a severe penalty has
to be levied on a patent found to be invalid on re-examination; when such a
patent is asserted in a case. If a company faces the prospect of a $10bn
penalty, compared to a $1 bn damages compensation; it will think a 100 times
before using the patent in a court. Additionally, it will also reduce the need
and motivation to apply for a patent in the first place, thus allowing the PTO a
lot of time for review and examination of a vastly reduced number of
applications, which are bound to be genuine, rather than
frivolous.
-----------------------
Instead of resolving the
issue as above, to limit the number of patents already issued; that can be
asserted in an infringement case, seems unjust and ill-conceived. This will only
disadvantage new innovative entrants, increase prices for the customers; reduce
competition, destroy entire new innovative markets, in short... lead to
stagnation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
