4 ms·
Monopoly can be more restrictive actually. For example, if it is only a monopoly, the institution can grant the monopoly but restrict patent transfer/sale. Cons
by liuliu 15y ago
Monopoly can be more restrictive actually. For example, if it is only a monopoly, the institution can grant the monopoly but restrict patent transfer/sale. Consider that most patent trolling companies are using patents they acquired, it may be a good thing. But as long as the current system setup goes, it is full property rights you have over your intellectual "product" (i.e. right to use, transfer, exclude and destroy)
- kbutler 15y agoActually, copyright and patent exclude the right to destroy. A patent must be filed & public to be granted. A copyright must be registered to file suit. To allow destruction would violate the very purpose of patent/copyright.
- Natsu 15y ago> A copyright must be registered to file suit. Nope! Not in the USA, anyhow. If you sue without registering, all it does is make statutory damages unavailable, it doesn't block you from filling suit. Also, you can register any time before filing suit, losing only your presumption of validity in certain cases. That said, both of those things are highly desirable, so it would be pretty silly to sue without taking care of those matters first. That said, get a lawyer if you ever have more than an academic interest in this, because there are always weird edge cases when dealing with the law.
- kbutler 15y agohttp://www.copyright.gov/fls/sl09.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/fls/sl09.pdf states: ...the Copyright Office must have acted on your application before you can file a suit for copyright infringement, and certain remedies, such as statutory damages and attorney’s fees, are available only for acts of infringement that occurred after the effective date of registration.
- Natsu 15y agoHmm, you're right. I got confused somewhere. http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-d.html http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/...