Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
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.
A new VFAT patent avoidance patch
Posted Jun 28, 2009 2:22 UTC (Sun) by tao (subscriber, #17563)
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)
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.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds