| |||||||||||||
respectful naming of your opponentrespectful naming of your opponentPosted Oct 15, 2007 22:18 UTC (Mon) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164)In reply to: respectful naming of your opponent by moxfyre Parent article: A visit from the trolls
So patent law needs a change, to ensure a company has to actively protect
(Log in to post comments)
respectful naming of your opponent Posted Oct 16, 2007 1:18 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] In the US, patent examination is supposed to eliminate applications that already in wide use or that should be obvious to a practitioner. Inventions that have been shipped (or otherwise disclosed) for more than a year are not eligible for patents.
If the law required that patents be actively used by the patent holder wouldn't work because the patent holder would be able to create products that were not competitive in the market (say, costing 10 times the cost of competitive products) and existed only to prove that the technology was being used.
Mandatory licensing for statutory fees could be an interesting approach. So could basing the duration of the patent on the cost/complexity of the invention process, the difficulty of the productization process, and how important the innovation is, but the difficulty of running such a process is unimaginable.
|
|||||||||||||