4 ms·
> If the original inventor doesn’t license or sell the product then owning the patent is literally worthless. That's only true for the public. A company may n
by labawi 6y ago
> If the original inventor doesn’t license or sell the product then owning the patent is literally worthless.
That's only true for the public.
A company may not with to license patent use under truly fair conditions, because it would compete with their products using a different technology, they may not with to license to potential competitors, and/or small businesses (fairly).
Alternatively, holder may be using the patent, but choose that their current cash-cow is good-enough so why support competition and innovation, when they can just bump it up slightly every 10 years or so.
- Retric 6y ago> it would compete with their products Defensive and overly broad patents are definitely a thing, but the intent is to give a monopoly for a limited time. Locking down alternatives not currently in production that are obvious workarounds is kind of a requirement for most patents to be meaningful. The issue is when a company in effect owns an industry and then keeps submitting obvious patents. But, here the problem is with obvious patents being granted.