To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
JoshuaS,
"For example, medicins take a lot of investment, but they are very cheap to reverse-engieer."
"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."
For the record, most software engineers are not calling for the general abolishment of the patent system in other fields like medicine, we're just saying that it shouldn't be applied to software, which is routinely derived simultaneously when multiple developers are given the same task to solve. Or when we're pressured to adopt a specific patented solution to be compatible with a defacto standard even though we'd really like to use non-infringing alternatives.
Edited 2012-10-09 15:29 UTC
Personally I'm for reform of the patent system, not abolition of it.
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.
Wait, are you telling me this isn't happening already?





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.