Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Oct 2012 09:24 UTC
Legal The failing US patent system is getting ever more mainstream - The New York Times is running a long and details piece on the failings of the system, especially in relation to the technology industry most of us hold so dearly. Most of the stuff in there isn't new to us - but there's two things in the article I want to highlight.
Thread beginning with comment 537841
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: My two cents
by JoshuaS on Mon 8th Oct 2012 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE: My two cents"
JoshuaS
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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: My two cents
by Gullible Jones on Mon 8th Oct 2012 18:06 in reply to "RE[2]: My two cents"
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: My two cents
by JoshuaS on Tue 9th Oct 2012 14:47 in reply to "RE[3]: My two cents"
JoshuaS Member since:
2011-09-15

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: My two cents
by intangible on Mon 8th Oct 2012 18:07 in reply to "RE[2]: My two cents"
intangible Member since:
2005-07-06

"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.

Reply Parent Score: 4