Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Jul 2012 23:07 UTC
Permalink for comment 525648
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 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
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
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-09-18
Or perhaps we could just have applicants pay 10k per year to maintain something in patent status for a maximum of 10 years.
A variation would have the fee double every year, so maybe 500$ the first year, 1k the second, 2k, 4k, 8k, 16k, 32k, 64k, 128k and finally 256,000$ for the 10th year.
That would at least help with the number of junk patents by either motivating companies to patent less, or by providing the patent office with more staff and resources.
Perhaps 2 classes of patents, one where a very heavy fee is paid upfront, but the patent is fully screened, peer reviewed and validated when granted. (For big ideas or things you'll license.) The other would have a lower fee, but the applicant is on the hook for penalties incurred because of an invalidated patent etc. (see my other commnet)