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.
Thread beginning with comment 556014
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by kwan_e
by Laurence on Thu 21st Mar 2013 09:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by kwan_e"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

That would work for the original intention of patents where processes). But these days much of the stuff that is patented are ideas, designs or even just maths. It's a lot harder to have those things kept closed and thus you're practically encouraging companies to continue to patent as they are. In fact, you're practically giving them a free pass to sue other companies (ie "X designed a swipe to unlock, Y saw that idea and now we want our research time refunded").

I do like your idea a lot though. And in an ideal world, designs and ideas would be covered by copyright alone, and maths couldn't be intellectual property. So your method would work.

There's certainly not a lot right in the current set up and having governments set up patent pools like that only emphasis the issues rather than help address them.

PS the nerd in me loves your nested footnotes. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Thu 21st Mar 2013 10:58 in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

That would work for the original intention of patents where processes). But these days much of the stuff that is patented are ideas, designs or even just maths. It's a lot harder to have those things kept closed and thus you're practically encouraging companies to continue to patent as they are.


That system isn't intended to work alongside patents, but to supersede them. No more patents, but we still want people to disclose inventions; and I think it will be fairer because the small inventors can be on a more equal playing field.

In fact, you're practically giving them a free pass to sue other companies (ie "X designed a swipe to unlock, Y saw that idea and now we want our research time refunded").


That's not a strong enough claim to sue others even today, but I included an exemption for reverse engineering, which I think covers it. But even if it comes to that, repaying research time is much more fairer than some vague "damages" that can't be proven.

I bet swipe to unlock costs less to develop than whatever silly damages that are claimed from copying it. It would also serve as a way to expose how much an invention is really "novel".

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by kwan_e
by Laurence on Thu 21st Mar 2013 11:19 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


That system isn't intended to work alongside patents, but to supersede them. No more patents, but we still want people to disclose inventions; and I think it will be fairer because the small inventors can be on a more equal playing field.

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).

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).

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'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).


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.


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 don't think there's any right or wrong answer here as both your method and existing patents are open to abuse. However if given a choice between what we have currently and what you're suggesting, then I'd probably side with your method.


I bet swipe to unlock costs less to develop than whatever silly damages that are claimed from copying it. It would also serve as a way to expose how much an invention is really "novel".

Good point ;)

Edited 2013-03-21 11:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3