|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
| n/t [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 07:08 AM EDT |
It will never fly. Mind you, I agree with your ideas, and it would cut trolling
considerably. It wouldn't eliminate it, but it would help.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
Not at all.
Just go back to the old requirement for a model! The application must confirm
the existence of a model implementation of the patent. If the patent is
prosecuted, the patent is limited to the capabilities of the model.
(That's "model" as in "example" - it could be the prototype
real thing, or even production example number 1, or whatever the applicant
thinks best demonstrates what the patent is.)
So if the model can't do it, it's not covered by the patent!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
This is just another band-aid.
The case against patents is actually quite good.
Case in point (forgive the pun) is the Case Against Patents:
A research paper written by Boldrin & Levine -
http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-035.pdf
So yeah. Scientific research indicates we're better off without patents. The
software engineer in me feels this is fundamentally the right solution.
The entire system feels like a collection of band aids on top of patches on top
of fixes to something that is, fundamentally, not salvagable. At this point it
does more damage to society than any of the supposed benefit we supposedly
derive from it.
I use the word "supposedly" here because there is absolutely no
evidence that their 'benefit' does not consist solely of a small group of people
(patent lawyers) and corporations (often dying dinosaurs that are losing in the
market due to a failure to innovate) gaining more money and power to hold back
the pace of innovation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
