Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Mar 2013 23:43 UTC
Legal Countries are starting to get into the patent business; countries like France and South Korea are setting up patent entities to protect domestic companies. "Intellectual Discovery presents itself as a defensive alliance: if a South Korean company finds itself targeted in a lawsuit, for instance, it can access the patents being compiled by Intellectual Discovery to hit back." I support this. If, say, a small Dutch company were to come under unfair patent aggression by bullies like Apple and Microsoft (quite likely these days), I damn well expect my government to protect them from it. If you can't fix the system, work with it. As simple as that.
Permalink for comment 556024
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Thu 21st Mar 2013 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e"
Member since:

Yeah, I got that. You're missing my point that if this is a drop in replacement then it doesn't fix anything (design / math patents are the core of the issue and your method, if used to enforce design IP, could still be abused).

Design/math patents won't be enforceable under that system. No government/NGO would pay for it. I think I haven't been clear on this point, but the intent of the system is that once the invention is disclosed, and the inventor is compensated, they have no further claims to the invention. There's no licencing.

If your method isn't used as a drop in replacement then it would never get passed as companies would lobby against it. (i know that's a terribly pessimistic comment, but half the problem we have the patent mess is down to companies influencing law).

Yes. I'm playing Sim-Society here. It has no DRM restrictions. Yet.

Plus whether you call your method "patenting" or not, you still need some formal method of certification as otherwise nobody will know what designs they're allowed the be influenced by and what designed they're not (which again, comes back to my point about how I'd rather see designs covered by copyright).

That would be the point. I think the fact that a government/NGO -> taxpayers would pay money for the invention means that people on all sides of the political spectrum would want a very thorough certification process. Much more thorough than what exists, and a much higher bar to go over.

That's not a strong enough claim to sue others even today,

Except that's exactly what is happening at the moment. (eg Apple's swipe to unlock patent).

My understanding of that is not the "design" of the swipe to unlock, but certain implementation details crucial to the definition of the invention.

but I included an exemption for reverse engineering, which I think covers it.

Your point was either the IP is put into the public domain and is covered or is kept hidden but is allowed to be reverse engineered. Design IP cannot be hidden (it's very nature means just releasing the product puts that IP into the public domain). So your reverse engineering rule doesn't really apply. And this is why I'm saying that as much as I like your idea, design patents are the real issue.

That's the point. Design IP should not be patentable, so my proposed system does not reward design IP (or mathematics).

But even if it comes to that, repaying research time is much more fairer than some vague "damages" that can't be proven.

There's valid arguments for and against each (you could argue that you're not encouraging "innovation" if everyone can leach of each others research without investing in their own).

I think it encourages small-time players to be innovative. First, they don't have to pay licence fees, so they've got a lot of prior art to innovate from for free. Innovation is evolutionary and based off the work of others. I'd say having inventions open so that people can stand on the shoulders of giants would encourage more innovation than the promise of financial reward dependent on business success.

Edited 2013-03-21 12:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2