|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 17 2013 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
Very good idea.
But it might run into problems when a small person/entity has to take action
against a big spender/rack up costs type. I think we can all think of a person
or two like that from past articles on Groklaw. It would certainly need
something to the effect that person/entity accused and found in breach would
have to pay the patentee's FULL costs.
How about the big entity is asked at start what they expect to pay in
legal/business costs to defend the action then that amount has to be made
available as well to the small person/entity for their use in protecting their
patent.
Should the big entity go over in their costs then twice the extra goes to
patentee. O.K. it would be difficult to define big and small but how about the
turnover of each and if one is more than say 10 times the other.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, March 18 2013 @ 02:52 AM EDT |
Some independent inventors will neither have, nor be able to borrow, the
resources to monetise their inventions. Others will be working in a big-business
technology and the patents they generate are part of the employment contract.
We saw Sun press its engineers to file as many patents as possible. This was,
clearly, not for the technology benefit, but for patent protection or attack.
The assignment of patents for money can promote independent invention and
inventor-employees. Stopping that would remove the impetus for a large part of
the innovation that patents promote.
The problem is that the lone-inventor, non-practising entities are not easy to
distinguish legally from trolling non-practising entities. The innovative
inventor/employer, patent-asserting, non-practising companies like Fraunhofer
are, similarly, difficult to differentiate from trolling NPEs.
The report identifies the two issues that have to be addressed; poor quality
patents and the legal inequities in the application of patent law in the courts.
We know that these are two major challenges because of vested interests, the
investments and profitability of patent pools and the wish of patent holders to
use them for anti-trust purposes.
I think that responding to PolR's two Groklaw USPTO submissions would go a long
way to minimising poor quality patents and not just those related to computer
based devices and software. The problem of courts such as those in East Texas
and other jurisdictions need to be addressed by improving court direction by the
authorities.
Please note that, even though Fraunhofer is a major research organisation and
invents things of great value such as the math for mp3 codecs, many of the
patents they assert are poor quality in that they patent math and not machines
or methods.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Patent Trading - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 18 2013 @ 08:21 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Monday, March 18 2013 @ 07:31 AM EDT |
If you place on the plaintiff an *obligation* to present the patented article to
court, not least as an exhibit to help bound the claims, that would cure a lot
of the problems of patents being sold on all over the place :-)
(Obviously, you need to permit *documented* changes to the original patented
article, because the patented item could be (a) large and (b) in production
use.)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: albert on Monday, March 18 2013 @ 05:53 PM EDT |
inventions made by their employees. The inventors get paid for the invention
(salary), the company makes money with the patent (as a monopoly), and
'protects' itself if someone steals the idea. I know lots of folks who are
listed as inventors on patents. That and $4 will get them a cup of coffee.
Individual inventors still exist, but they face the same problems they have
_always_ faced:
1. Theft - a deep pocket company can always outlast an inventor in a lawsuit.
Even if the inventor wins, legal fees can eat the majority of an award, leaving
the inventor with a fraction of the market worth of the patent.
2. Licensing - a decent bet for the inventor, unless he is greedy, hard to
monitor royalties, or see 1.
3. Sale - difficult, depends on the company, and real value of invention.
That said, there ARE examples of successful inventors out there, IIRC, few for
software patents. Hardware is MUCH easier to patent, and safer, because
hardware patents are easier to understand.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ukjaybrat on Wednesday, March 20 2013 @ 08:55 AM EDT |
This would just create a whole new issue. once a patent is
sold, then it effective becomes nullified.
If I have a patent for blowing bubbles. Only i can blow
bubbles. If i sell you my bubble blowing patent. Now everyone
can blow bubbles because you can't sue them for it. So the
patent effectively means nothing. might as well just say that
no one can sell patents, just license them. that make sense?
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
