4 ms·
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.co
by 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 agoI 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.