Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Aug 2010 22:11 UTC, submitted by lfeagan
Legal Most of us here are not particularly big fans of the concept of patents. Most of us are aware of the significance of patents, we just believe the system has gone out of control and needs a serious kick in the butt. Well, it turns out not even the richest people on this earth are immune to the call of the patent troll. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen has filed a massive patent lawsuit, using broad and vague patents to sue just about any big name in the business - from Apple to Google.
Thread beginning with comment 438519
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Patents Wars
by anda_skoa on Sat 28th Aug 2010 10:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Patents Wars"
anda_skoa
Member since:
2005-07-07

* Patents are transferable. This is probably one of the biggest mistake ever made in industry laws. It does nothing to help innovation, and it's the direct source of existence of patent trolls. If a company wants a patent, it should have to hire all the alive inventors of the patented device first ;) Obvious fix : remove this clause from the law.


A company could still become a patent troll by creating some and then releasing thir R&D staff and just keep the laywers.

I think an important additional rule would be that the patent holder is explicitly required to actually make use of the patented technology within a certain time period, e.g. two years.

Failure to do so should invalidate this patent's protection.

The base idea of patents is to allow inventions to be used for competitive advantage while still having the involved improvement published.
If a patent holder is clearly incapable or unwilling to actually make use of the improvement, they should no longer be allowed to keep others from trying.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Patents Wars
by monodeldiablo on Sun 29th Aug 2010 00:49 in reply to "RE[3]: Patents Wars"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

I think an important additional rule would be that the patent holder is explicitly required to actually make use of the patented technology within a certain time period, e.g. two years.

Failure to do so should invalidate this patent's protection.


DING DING DING!! We have a winner!

By making no other changes to the system than this, we can ensure that patents are used for their intended purpose. No need to even touch the Constitution, as this is completely in line with its intended purpose.

Bad patents are a bug, and this is a simple, elegant fix.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Patents Wars
by Bounty on Mon 30th Aug 2010 16:05 in reply to "RE[4]: Patents Wars"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

"I think an important additional rule would be that the patent holder is explicitly required to actually make use of the patented technology within a certain time period, e.g. two years. Failure to do so should invalidate this patent's protection.
DING DING DING!! We have a winner! By making no other changes to the system than this, we can ensure that patents are used for their intended purpose. No need to even touch the Constitution, as this is completely in line with its intended purpose. Bad patents are a bug, and this is a simple, elegant fix. "

What would you define as a making use? Do you have to have a product, prototype, drawings, research or what? If you have a product, does it have to be competitive or can I sell a quantum computer that can only add 1+1 while I work out the bugs (which may take a few years)

Edited 2010-08-30 16:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2