4 ms·
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 t
by 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.)
- caminante 3y agoMy point was simpler: negotiations don't have to end in agreement, let alone trying to get a patent license. This discussion has devolved into abstract swipes at the patent law system with characterizations that don't even apply if you take the article at face value.
- taeric 3y agoBut that plays into the "wild" part. It is wild that you can refuse to let someone do something that you know how to do. In the "compulsive licensing" world, it would be "wild" to not allow someone to perform a song that you played first. Which is why we don't allow that. In fashion, it would be wild for you to have certain button schemes that nobody else can use. We don't allow that. In math, it would be wild to have equations nobody could use. We... sorta do not allow that.
- caminante 3y agoI understand your point (patents are quirky in that they give unilateral blocking rights). That's not what I'm taking issue with. Remember, the entire premise of this subthread isn't even grounded in the facts of this case!