3 ms·

I don't know, one wonders why GeoTag filed ~400 patents at the exact same time, but the basic idea of an R&D only company that makes money by licencing its disc

by Tycho 16y ago

I don't know, one wonders why GeoTag filed ~400 patents at the exact same time, but the basic idea of an R&D only company that makes money by licencing its discoveries, or even of a company that makes money by buying other peoples patents, seem to be logical extensions of having any agreeance with the patent system. Bad patents, of course, are another matter (or being sued for something you 'invented' - isn't that supposed to be impossible?)

bediger 16y ago
Independent invention is definitely not a defense in a patent infringement suit: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=903521 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=903521 That's certainly consistent with the current, US Constitution basis for patents, to encourage general progress by giving a limited monopoly to an inventor. It's not consistent with any kind of "ownership basis" for patents, which gives someone a monopoly on an idea because of the exceptional, very special nature of the invention. If we grant ownership of an idea to someone based on the incredibleness of their invention, then surely an independent inventor deserves the same, or maybe even more, privilege on the idea. Patent cases don't consider whether the alleged infringer "stole"/copied the idea, or thought of it independently. The one study that has been done on this appears to support independent invention in almost all cases: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160
- Tycho 16y ago
  I thought you meant 'original' inventor, not just independant invention. Also it makes sense that most cases would point to independant invention, as if a business stole it they'd have every reason to believe they'd get caught... maybe. My point is that if independant invention was a successful defence then perhaps 'everyone' would use it and most patents wouldn't work at all.

by Tycho 16y ago

bediger 16y ago

Independent invention is definitely not a defense in a patent infringement suit: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=903521 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=903521 That's certainly consistent with the current, US Constitution basis for patents, to encourage general progress by giving a limited monopoly to an inventor. It's not consistent with any kind of "ownership basis" for patents, which gives someone a monopoly on an idea because of the exceptional, very special nature of the invention. If we grant ownership of an idea to someone based on the incredibleness of their invention, then surely an independent inventor deserves the same, or maybe even more, privilege on the idea. Patent cases don't consider whether the alleged infringer "stole"/copied the idea, or thought of it independently. The one study that has been done on this appears to support independent invention in almost all cases: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1270160

Tycho 16y ago
I thought you meant 'original' inventor, not just independant invention. Also it makes sense that most cases would point to independant invention, as if a business stole it they'd have every reason to believe they'd get caught... maybe. My point is that if independant invention was a successful defence then perhaps 'everyone' would use it and most patents wouldn't work at all.