True, the re-sale would not benefit the inventor... but the proceeds from the
original sale would. Additionally, one would expect to negotiate a much higher
payment for a full sale as opposed to only licensing.
And then there's
the potential added liabilities the inventor may not want with a unique
licensing (can't remember the exact term, where the inventor only licenses to a
single entity). If the licensee decided that third party X infringed and that
the inventor was derelict in his duties to enforce, the licensee could then sue
the inventor for possible breach of contract - depending on the contract terms
of course. Meaning: a troll will find a way to abuse the system even if it's by
forcing someone else to act in that abuse.
I think the bottom line is
There are those that would abuse the litigation process as a form of
Unfortunately, I don't believe placing limitations on the
inventor will be the correct way to solve such problems.
I think one
correct method to limit the effect of patent trolling (in specific) would be to
remove the opening of patents when the words "anything under the sun" were
added. Bring back the more stringent requirements that "not all inventions are
deserving of the monopoly that patent protection grants". I've said it before
and I'll say it again: it was a sad day when the Thomas Jefferson's no longer
were the patent examiners.
That would just be one step. Another step is
for the USPTO to hire "practiced individuals in the art" and see if they can
build the "invention". If it can't be built, then the inventor must supply a
working model. If the inventor can't supply such a working model, the invention
This would have three effects:
First: it confirms the
invention is described in sufficient detail that a practitioner in the art can
duplicate the invention.
Second: At this time, I think there's a very
wide door open where someone could claim to have built the warp engine when not
even they could build the technology because the knowledge and materials
required are simply outside the scope of modern science. This would prevent
claims to an invention that simply is not possible under current knowledge. If
it's not patented, others would feel much more free to perform their own R&D
into the technology thereby driving the inventive juices rather then stifling
Third: It would clearly show those simpler inventions that could
"be done in their entirety within the mind".
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]