But not just limited to the capabilities of the model though - but the
capabilities plus specific design of the model as well.
One can patent a
specific mousetrap, but one should not be able to patent the concept of trapping
a mouse. Trapping a mouse is a capability of a given model - but that alone
should not be sufficient for infringement.
However - I don't think that
would be sufficient to stop the abuse that I see occurring:
Patent Lawyers
claiming outside the four corners of the patent that was granted
While it
would certainly help to define what the four corners are it would be no
deterrent to abuse the system for licensing fees. A deterrent must cost the
abuser. If it's not a punishment, it's not a deterrent.
If someone
doesn't get what they're not supposed to have in the first place, that's not a
punishment - only a confirmation of what is.
While I think Congress is
moving in the right direction with their thought of having the patent plaintiff
pay for the defendants costs, I don't think they're going far enough and I don't
think it's something that will be applied effectively in Court.
As a
result, I think the only real deterrent is that:
If you abuse your patent by
attempting to lay claim to more then the patent grants - you forfeit it!
It
doesn't matter how valid (or invalid) the patent granted was: it could be on a
real working warp engine. You abuse it by laying claim to significantly more
then the patent actually grants - you forfeit it.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
