5 ms·
The fact that there are disputes over who has an IP right does not mean that IP law is an outright failure and should be abolished. By that logic, disputes over
by bdowling 5y ago
The fact that there are disputes over who has an IP right does not mean that IP law is an outright failure and should be abolished. By that logic, disputes over who committed a crime would mean that criminal law is an outright failure and should be abolished.
The fact that there are disputes over who has an IP right means that IP rights are important and valuable and are therefore worth fighting about.
- Aerroon 5y agoBut these constant court disputes mean that it moves some technologies outside of the realm of regular people. If Apple gets a patent for "Display with Pixel Dimming for Curved Edges" then regular people and smaller companies can't use that even if Apple's patent is nonsense. You can only afford to fight off so many lawsuits and still continue doing your original work.
- bdowling 5y agoMost individuals and small companies should(*) just ignore patents they think are invalid because in almost all cases either (a) the patent is actually invalid and the patent owner won't actually litigate it or (b) the patent is valid but much narrower in scope than they think it is. Every patent I've seen held up here on HN as an example of an overly-broad, clearly invalid patent has had much narrower claims than the presenter admits. (*) I am a lawyer, but not your lawyer. This is a general observation and not legal advice. Your actual case will be different.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]