3 ms·
> Billion-dollar verdicts to companies that do not even produce a marketable product are the antithesis of that intention. It depends on how exactly you define
by kevincox 6y ago
> Billion-dollar verdicts to companies that do not even produce a marketable product are the antithesis of that intention.
It depends on how exactly you define "a product". I think that if one could do research and come up with valuable technology that they hope to license. If this is a useful idea then I think they should be able to sue over it even if they don't have a "product".
I think it depends more on the patent itself. If the patent is very clever and something that people are unlikely to discover themselves then it makes sense to exist and be enforceable. However if it is something obvious or simple to independently discover than it should not be, irrespective if you are producing a product or not.
- jedberg 6y ago> I think it depends more on the patent itself. If the patent is very clever and something that people are unlikely to discover themselves then it makes sense to exist and be enforceable. Not really, not if the holder isn't actively exploiting it. The whole point of patents is to encourage expensive innovation so you don't come up with something and then have it stolen after doing the hard work. But if you did the hard word and aren't exploiting it, then it shouldn't be withheld from society. Let someone else exploit it. If you did the research but can't mass market it, then you should be forced to sell the patent, so that society can benefit from your invention. At the end of the day, the patent system is supposed to benefit society, not the inventor.