Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Apr 2011 20:05 UTC, submitted by JAlexoid
Google Considering the massive FUD-attack currently underway against Android vendors, this news doesn't come as a particular surprise: Google has announced plans to acquire Nortel's immense patent portfolio for defensive purposes. Google's blog post on the matter couldn't be more bitter and direct.
Permalink for comment 469010
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Patents and me
by Abstract on Tue 5th Apr 2011 00:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Patents and me"
Abstract
Member since:
2009-10-24

In your self-righteous "oh look at poor Apple boo hoo"-tone speaks volumes.

About you.


Uncle Thom meet kettle, kettle meet Uncle Thom.

Some of your "suggestions" aren't bad, though you have some short sightedness to a few.

depending on your market, a patent length of 5-7 years should be more than enough. For instance, in the medical field, a type of drug can often be published about way before it enters the market due to extensive testing, testing that lasts a lot longer than with other products. Consequently, it might be beneficial to have a longer patent term in the medical field


Allowing variable lengths can/will lead to gray areas, better to have the same amount of time apply to all patents.

terms cannot be extended. If you fail to bring your product to market, patent expires forever. Someone else can have a go at it.


I think this is a good idea also. See the response above. So with all patents having the same amount of time, they should all expire without extension when that time expires.

patents MUST be tied to the inventor(s). They cannot be sold or transferred to someone else. They cannot be owned by a company. Even if done in the boss' time, a patent should be tied to the original inventors. This prevents patent hoarding and patent trolling


What would be the incentive to fund (wether it is via employment, grants, etc..) a person to research if you could not get a ROI?

Sure Einstein started his work while working as a patent clerk, and Apple started in a garage, but thats not always the case, some of our greatest achievements are from people being funded which allowed them to focus on their research.

ALL patent applications must be accompanied by a working prototype that can be demonstrated, in working condition, to the patent office. This prevents individuals from throwing random, untested concepts to see what sticks. If you invent something, it better not be "in theory". Working prototype, or no dice


I agree with this partially, the wording should probably be a bit clearer. Instead of "accompany" the patent application the prototype should be made available to a patent clerk prior to being awarded. Somethings maybe to large to send to the patent office, but I agree with the working prototype as to just theory.

software is already protected by copyright. Hence, software should not be patentable


This is another gray area. What is the difference really between a chemical formula and a block of code? Both are the blueprint on how the final product is created. A material is patentable as well as the process in which to create it, I see no real difference with software.

governments can democratically decide to nullify certain patents if it benefits the greater good, for example patents on a drug or water treatment technique that could save lives if produced by 3rd parties in greater quantities


Gray area again. This can easily be abused, somethings would be clear cut, others not so much. Besides where would be the incentive? If you can have your IP taken from you without compensation. A good example would be the movie "Flash of Genius" the intermittent wind shield wiper, it was the best way to do a wiper and therefore the safest application of one, so should the inventor not be entitled to compensation?

Reply Parent Score: 1