3 ms·

That's one of the reasons for Gorsuch's dissent. I suggest you read it: it's quite clear and principled. I think the Court's opinion is that the remedy to the

That's one of the reasons for Gorsuch's dissent. I suggest you read it: it's quite clear and principled. I think the Court's opinion is that the remedy to the courts is still available even after the board's decision, so it's fine. (I think this is good but an unfavorable board decision reversed by the courts later is going to have very bad effects on the businesses affected. Property rights need to be secure and uncertain property rights are _punished_ mightily by the market.)

microtherion 8y ago
I agree that an unfavorable board decision can hurt a non-practicing entity. On the other hand, an improperly granted patent can hurt a business that is bringing actual products to market. I would argue that if these scenarios have to be balanced, one should err on the side of allowing products to be shipped.
mtgx 8y ago
Intellectual "Property" is an intentional misnomer used by IP holders as propaganda to support the idea that IP is "just like property." It's not, because unlike property you can't establish that 100% of a project were your ideas and your ideas only. Every new project is a recombination of ideas. It's not 100% original. If copyright and patents would be enforced perfectly and automatically, there would no longer be any new inventions. More on this here: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/feb/21/intellectual.property https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/feb/21/intellect... https://mises.org/library/intellectual-property-not-true-property https://mises.org/library/intellectual-property-not-true-pro... https://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/ https://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/