|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Friday, June 21 2013 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
NO.
I think that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. BUT.
The plaintiff should be required to demonstrate the invention to the court on
demand. Failure to do so renders them liable to summary dismissal for failing to
make a case for which relief can be granted.
(Of course, with many of these patents, producing the invention is likely to
render them liable to summary dismissal for making a fool of themselves :-)
If we can get the patent system back on track where it isn't issuing (or it's
not worth "inventor"s while to get) bad patents, then the NPE troll
problem will go away.
It makes sense. If you're going to accuse someone of infringing your patent, you
need to show them what they're accused of infringing. Given that patents are
suposedly non-abstract, you can show them the physical object!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 21 2013 @ 02:57 PM EDT |
I can own farm land without farming. In some cases, the government will pay me
NOT to grow corn on the land. Why do I have to manufacture my invention in
order to collect a royalty if someone else wants to make my invention.
I invented it so I could retire on the royalties![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Why? - Authored by: globularity on Friday, June 21 2013 @ 08:11 PM EDT
- Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2013 @ 07:51 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
