3 ms·

Sorta? Compulsive licensing is something that only exists in a very narrow market for copyright material. Pretty sure it does not exist at all for patents. Y

by taeric 3y ago

Sorta? Compulsive licensing is something that only exists in a very narrow market for copyright material. Pretty sure it does not exist at all for patents. You can argue that it is somewhat moot here, as Apple was not showing any willingness to negotiate. But the post above is somewhat accurate, in that there is no guarantee that negotiations will end in a license.

bumby 3y ago
I wasn’t aware either, but it looks like it’s a thing for some potentially critical patents. The example in Wikipedia is the US govt threatening Bayer with compulsory licensing of their anthrax treatment if they refused to lower their price.
- pests 3y ago
  I beleive the Wright Brothers also had to give up / forced to licence their patent which was key to modern flight. Maybe WW1 related? I might be wrong here butI remember reading it somewhere.
unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
Practically speaking, damages for the infringement would be a reasonable royalty.[1] So, having to go through the courts to enforce a patent is sorta like a compulsory license, in a way. Going to the ITC skips that, goes simply to stopping future sales. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/284# https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/284#
caminante 3y ago
> But the post above is somewhat accurate, in that there is no guarantee that negotiations will end in a license. Why is that revelation "wild?" Imagine saying, > It’s so wild that [Bernie] is allowed to refuse to [allow Bob] to [rent Bernie's spare bedroom]. putting aside the fact that [Bob] doesn't even want to rent from [Bernie] as applied to the situation here with the watches! :-)
- mort96 3y ago
  The patent isn't personal property that the company "owns" like how a person owns a house, it's a segment of the market where the government grants a company a legal monopoly. I don't understand why it should be a total legal monopoly. If the idea was that the company which employed the people who invented something cool should "deserve" to get filthy rich (why do we want that again?), you'd think that could be achieved by forcing other companies who want to be in the same space to pay money to the company which employed the inventors. But instead we apparently want to say, "no other company should be allowed to make a watch with a pulse oximeter for 20 years unless the company which employed the inventor agrees to it". Why?
  - caminante 3y ago
    > I don't understand why it should be a total legal monopoly... You're asking philosophical questions about the patent system. I'm not defending the patent system and IANAL. I recommend the wiki article to get an overview [0]. Your phrasing doesn't align with my understanding of patent law or the article's characterization of the situation. > The patent isn't personal property that the company "owns" like how a person owns a house... > But instead we apparently want to say, "no other company should be allowed to make a watch with a pulse oximeter for 20 years unless the company which employed the inventor agrees to it". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects
  - vel0city 3y ago
    Apple didn't need to use this design to make a pulse oximeter. There are other ways to make them. It's just most of the commonly known other ways aren't as good or accurate as the one Masimo researched and designed.
- taeric 3y ago
  I think it is fair to argue against it, to a large extent. However, patents are techniques and methods to do something. This would almost be akin to a sport team getting exclusive use of a play because they registered their playbook first. Which, yes, sounds "wild." I, sadly, don't know all of the details in this case. But with patents, remember that you don't even have to show that "Bob" even knew of the existence of "Bernie." They could have come to the same general techniques completely independently, but because they were not "first to file," they cannot use them. (Obviously, if I am wrong on the above, please correct me.)

by taeric 3y ago

bumby 3y ago

I wasn’t aware either, but it looks like it’s a thing for some potentially critical patents. The example in Wikipedia is the US govt threatening Bayer with compulsory licensing of their anthrax treatment if they refused to lower their price.

pests 3y ago
I beleive the Wright Brothers also had to give up / forced to licence their patent which was key to modern flight. Maybe WW1 related? I might be wrong here butI remember reading it somewhere.

unyttigfjelltol 3y ago

Practically speaking, damages for the infringement would be a reasonable royalty.[1] So, having to go through the courts to enforce a patent is sorta like a compulsory license, in a way. Going to the ITC skips that, goes simply to stopping future sales. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/284# https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/284#

caminante 3y ago

> But the post above is somewhat accurate, in that there is no guarantee that negotiations will end in a license. Why is that revelation "wild?" Imagine saying, > It’s so wild that [Bernie] is allowed to refuse to [allow Bob] to [rent Bernie's spare bedroom]. putting aside the fact that [Bob] doesn't even want to rent from [Bernie] as applied to the situation here with the watches! :-)

mort96 3y ago
The patent isn't personal property that the company "owns" like how a person owns a house, it's a segment of the market where the government grants a company a legal monopoly. I don't understand why it should be a total legal monopoly. If the idea was that the company which employed the people who invented something cool should "deserve" to get filthy rich (why do we want that again?), you'd think that could be achieved by forcing other companies who want to be in the same space to pay money to the company which employed the inventors. But instead we apparently want to say, "no other company should be allowed to make a watch with a pulse oximeter for 20 years unless the company which employed the inventor agrees to it". Why?
- caminante 3y ago
  > I don't understand why it should be a total legal monopoly... You're asking philosophical questions about the patent system. I'm not defending the patent system and IANAL. I recommend the wiki article to get an overview [0]. Your phrasing doesn't align with my understanding of patent law or the article's characterization of the situation. > The patent isn't personal property that the company "owns" like how a person owns a house... > But instead we apparently want to say, "no other company should be allowed to make a watch with a pulse oximeter for 20 years unless the company which employed the inventor agrees to it". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects
- vel0city 3y ago
  Apple didn't need to use this design to make a pulse oximeter. There are other ways to make them. It's just most of the commonly known other ways aren't as good or accurate as the one Masimo researched and designed.
taeric 3y ago
I think it is fair to argue against it, to a large extent. However, patents are techniques and methods to do something. This would almost be akin to a sport team getting exclusive use of a play because they registered their playbook first. Which, yes, sounds "wild." I, sadly, don't know all of the details in this case. But with patents, remember that you don't even have to show that "Bob" even knew of the existence of "Bernie." They could have come to the same general techniques completely independently, but because they were not "first to file," they cannot use them. (Obviously, if I am wrong on the above, please correct me.)