3 ms·
I am not sure if I understand your point. Are you saying that poorly written patents should be litigated, and that such a law would make this much harder to do?
by paddw 3y ago
I am not sure if I understand your point. Are you saying that poorly written patents should be litigated, and that such a law would make this much harder to do?
I can see how something like this could be an issue. Ultimately, I don't think there is a perfect solution, but I feel the current way the system works is very far from optimal in its costs and benefits.
- Zigurd 3y agoI do not think there is a clear answer to this. I can understand some people taking the position that a poorly written, hard to understand patent does not deserve to survive, especially if if the people who wrote it are trying to be clever by having it mean what they say it means if it gets litigated. OTOH it can also be argued that trolls posing as public interest groups are operating in bad faith and the fact a patent is hard to understand has been par for the course for so long, that making patent holders review their patents for clearly defensible language is unfair.
- freejazz 3y agoEFF is an industry group posing as a public interest group, operating in bad faith in order to dissolve copyright and patent law.
- freejazz 3y ago> Are you saying that poorly written patents should be litigated, Why shouldn't they? Courts don't necessarily invalidate contracts just because one flaw might be present. The point of the system isn't to just invalidate patents because someone else wants to... it's to fairly adjudicate the boundaries of granted patents. You are starting from 2nd base!