3 ms·
This problem would be a lot easier to deal with if independent invention was a defense (as it is supposed to be, but in practice basically never is) against a p
by pdonis 5y ago
This problem would be a lot easier to deal with if independent invention was a defense (as it is supposed to be, but in practice basically never is) against a patent infringement claim--particularly if the owner of the patent has done nothing to actually implement it.
- morcheeba 5y agoYep, that would help. From what I can tell, the wheelchair patent is aspirational and they haven't actually implemented the majority of standard autonomous vehicle practices.
- bluGill 5y agoThe patent office should start demanding working models for everything. You shouldn't patent something unless it actually works.
- jandrese 5y agoMaybe demand a working model for the patent, but also reject a patent if anybody else has something similar in development? So you have a brilliant idea like "lets put email on a cell phone", but the infrastructure isn't in place to support it yet. A few years later you finally get it working, but now you can't patent because there are 5 other companies who started the process at basically the same time--once the prerequisite technology was in place. This would reduce the number of patents on "the most obvious way to solve this obvious problem that only appears because the technology has advanced enough" that patent trolls love. So many of the "do X, but now on a computer" patents wouldn't be a thing. Requiring a working prototype would also make it hard to issue vaguely worded and extremely broad patents, so someone can't claim ownership over the entire concept of sending push notifications for example.
- maerF0x0 5y agoone issue is that you might not want to start prototyping something (for cost reasons) until you have a defensible moat.
- _0ffh 5y agoIncidentally, in the US from 1790 to 1880, supplying a working model was indeed a prerequisite for a patent application.
- HPsquared 5y agoThat's kind of similar to how copyright works - it's about whether something is "derivative work". A similar principle could apply for patents perhaps?
- rhino369 5y ago>independent invention was a defense (as it is supposed to be, but in practice basically never is) It's actually not a defense at all and isn't supposed to be. Its sort of like a prize for inventing it first. It's only a defense if you publicly disclosed it before patentee did. Secret use was a defense if you invented it first (and didn't abandon or hide your invention when it was ready), but that was changed with the America Invents Act.
- pdonis 5y ago> It's actually not a defense at all Yes, looking at some law references I see you are correct. I also see plenty of law review articles arguing that it should be (with which I agree).