3 ms·
> Why would that matter? You don't need to make anything to get a patent. This touches on something I never understood about people's take on patent non-practi
by CoastalCoder 3y ago
> Why would that matter? You don't need to make anything to get a patent.
This touches on something I never understood about people's take on patent non-practicing entities (NPEs).
IMO the fundamental problem is that the patent system grants patents that are too broad, insufficiently innovative, and for too long of a duration.
But I never understood the complaint about patent assertions by parties that don't use the patents themselves. It strikes me as analogous to demanding that authors only get copyright on works that they self-publish.
- unethical_ban 3y agoWell, there aren't hundreds or thousands of authors writing autogenerated stories with as many names and plot elements as possible, then using anyone who uses the name "john" or a plot twist in their own creations. In other words, the trolling issue is not occurring in book writing as it appears to in patenting. Oh, and you do see people here criticizing the length of copyright protection in the US.
- lupire 3y agoCopyright applies to the subjective holistic work as a whole, whereas patents are written for explicitly described elements. You don't copyright "John". Also, most generic aspects of art have prior as art from long before the USA was invented and any copyrights were granted. Technology changes far more quickly than art. And when art is valuable, it does get copyright suits. And copyright term is 10x as long as parent term.
- wormius 3y agoThe stated aim of copyright/patents in the US Constitution (Art 1, Sec 8) is: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" It seems to me that sitting on a perfectly good patent and not using it is precisely the opposite effect of the stated aims of copyright/patents. Yet this is the system we have. Would love to see the supposed "originalists" try to find a way to justify the current system with the language literally IN the constitution.
- CoastalCoder 3y agoI'm sure this is covered thoroughly in legal studies, and IANAL. But here's my current take on it: If we're going to let people sell patent rights in a free market, I'm guessing we need to let patent holders chose to not sell at a given price. Otherwise they have severely limited negotiating power. I.e., suppose we did add a use-it-or-lose-it patent rule. Think of the ways that you, as a would be rights-purchaser, could exploit that.