Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 29th Mar 2007 22:07 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Permalink for comment 225906
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
{ Others will not have the same ability to create something new if you hold a patent, since their very own idea has become a government granted monopoly. They are barred from implementing their own ideas and barred from competition. }
This seems to be a common misconception amongst Americans in particular.
Holding a patent does NOT grant a monopoly on an idea, and it does NOT prevent others from making a competing product.
Patents protect only a particular method of doing something.
Therefore, as an example, even during the time when Panadol/Tylenol was on the market and its makers held a valid patent for the formula for paracetamol, that patent did not prevent other pharmaceutical companies from putting their own competing headache tablets on the market, such as aspirin, dispirin, codeine, naprogesic (naproxen) or nurofen (ibuprofen).
Patents do NOT protect ideas (such as "headache tablet") per se, they protect only one possible method of doing something (such as "formula for paracetamol").
Edited 2007-03-30 13:54