To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Okay, I suppose that's not a great example. Even so...
They're on getting a monoply on a product you conceived.
How is this not a problem? Even in theory it allows the inventor to have a stranglehold on X product and anything derived from X product. Yay price fixing.
Mind, IRL it's usually not the inventor who has the patent, it's the corporation the inventor works for. So it's not even like the interests of the actual inventor are being protected.
The inventor having a strangle hold on the product is the purpose of the system. Otherwise inventors and their investors will have a huge competitive disadvantage. For example, medicins take a lot of investment, but they are very cheap to reverse-engieer.
I think that we should just define a patentable idea as something which can be produced as a good or service. And only specifically that, deriative idea's are not included in the rights of the patent-holder. And a requirement for a patent should be that the holder actually produces the good or the service. Easy as that.
By abolishing the patent system entirely, many industries will stagnate because of the mear cost of innovation and small, innovatng bussinesses crushed by multi-nationals, because of their shear resources.
We must be careful what we wish for.
"If only we have the right people in charge it would be okay" (in this context, "smarter patent authority")...
I dunno about you, but after seeing government after government try that route, I just don't think it's going to work.
Those with incentive to game the system end up corrupting it through various influences; the only way to win is to reduce the power of the system.





Member since:
2011-09-15
Terrible conterexample. Is F = ma a product produced by a company? No. Patents aren't a tool to get a monopoly on applying a law of nature. They're on getting a monoply on a product you conceived. A good patent office would know this.