3 ms·

I agree that #1 and #4 are problematic, and to a lesser extent #6. #3 sounds good, but how do you stop people from submitting code written in Brainfuck or TECO

• throwaway125 14y ago
  Regarding #3 I think they want the patent holder to prove he is actually using the invention for a (commercial) benefit. If you invent a copy protection scheme they want to see you actively sell it to third parties or actively use it in your own product. I think that makes sense to be honest, people shouldn't be able to sleep on an invention until they find a suitable company to sue for high profit margins. Edit: This is in reply to points about software patents only.
  • Retric 14y ago
    The classic drug pipeline includes pure research companies that would be NPE's.
    • against-patents 14y ago
      Isn't it rather possible that the right answer for software is not like the right answer for drugs, and that it takes an expert in a particular field to propose a sensible reform (assuming one is needed in that field)? A lot of the questions about what patents tend to do seem to have different answers in different fields: http://inventors-against-patents.org/faq.html#is_abolition_obvious http://inventors-against-patents.org/faq.html#is_abolition_o...
    • krichman 14y ago
      US healthcare has an abysmal cost-to-benefit ratio in comparison with most of Europe.