| |||||||||||||
A new VFAT patent avoidance patchA new VFAT patent avoidance patchPosted Jun 28, 2009 1:24 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: A new VFAT patent avoidance patch by drag Parent article: A new VFAT patent avoidance patch
if people lost their patents by not enforcing them there would be no such thing as a 'submarine' patent
there have been too many cases where something has been in use for years and then the patent owner starts to demand licensing for things to work the way you say they do in the real world.
I think that it's trademarks that have to be defended or you loose them.
(Log in to post comments)
A new VFAT patent avoidance patch Posted Jun 28, 2009 2:22 UTC (Sun) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link]
+1 Insightful.
You're totally correct. Patents can be enforced or not on a totally arbitrary basis. Copyrights likewise. Trademarks have to be enforced strictly though, or they risk being considered void.
If patents had to be enforced non-arbitrarily not to lose validity, a lot less patent trolling would take place, since few if any trolls would dare go up against IBM or Microsoft in a patent court. And with its multitude of patents, IBM would not be able to do any sales/development, they'd be too busy spending time in court.
Mild straw man Posted Jun 29, 2009 12:10 UTC (Mon) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375) [Link]
To achieve the goal you have set up, you would need to change patents from being a granted monopoly with the right to exclude others from doing what you claim monopoly in. What you'd change them to, I can only guess, and it looks like this: a person applies for a patent for a novel and inventive device or method, which is near-automatically granted based on search results. Then if litigation is to occur, the apparent rights-holder has to have the patent examined as to novelty and non-obvious inventive concept.
This would have your must-be-enforced criterion met. As it stands, international law has a qualification that a patent holder may have their patent revoked if they aren't in business and making use of their patented device or method -- and if also the challenger can show that such behaviour has harmed their business, which is unheard-of in my experience of patent practice.
However, there's a downside to this approach: with a granted but unexamined patent (or a few hundred of them) I can threaten you much more cheaply than with present full-monopoly patents. So I think that the change would make the situation worse.
K3n.
|
|||||||||||||