4 ms·
I don't know about non-transferable - if IBM are better placed to capitalize on my invention than I am, I think it should be fair to sell it to them. But I'm c
by soneil 7y ago
I don't know about non-transferable - if IBM are better placed to capitalize on my invention than I am, I think it should be fair to sell it to them.
But I'm certainly in favour of some use-it-or-lose-it clause that lets a "portfolio" age quickly.
- yason 7y agoBut in that case IBM can license the invention from you, which is also the idea of a patent. And instead of negotiating a selling price you would negotiate a licensing price.
- soneil 7y agoDoes that realistically make a difference? The only difference between selling it for $x or leasing it for $(x/3) (assuming GP's proposition to dramatically reduce the term), is whether they want exclusivity, whether they can back out of a lease early), and who shoulders the costs of defending it. At that point you've made little difference to how patents affect the industry, you've just increased the administration for the inventor.
- themacks 7y agoIt would mean IBM couldn't sue someone for violating it.