5 ms·
It seems that bad patents would hurt less if they didn’t persist for so long. Why can’t we come up with some sort of earlier phase-out, where patents must be r
by tcbawo 3y ago
It seems that bad patents would hurt less if they didn’t persist for so long. Why can’t we come up with some sort of earlier phase-out, where patents must be re-litigated or justified to remain in effect?
- mr_toad 3y agoBecause the foxes are in charge of the hen house. The lobbyists, the congressmen, the patent trolls, the patent office - none of them would benefit from weakening patents.
- semiquaver 3y agoI tend to agree, but the introduction of the Inter Partes Review process at issue in this rule is itself an important counter example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy–Smith_America_Invents_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy–Smith_America_Invents_... It was introduced not that long ago as part of bipartisan legislation that meaningfully reformed the existing patent system, including by introducing systems like IPR which clearly weaken the rights of patent holders (who have been fighting ever since to overturn it). If the system were utterly irredeemable, reforms like this should never survive.