|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
Having to supply a model would put a limit on software patents too. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 11:13 PM EDT |
Well, if the licensee was to take an exclusive license, ie equivalent to the
sale, then the price could be just as high. Tying rights to actual use of the
patent would help reduce trolling and if the patent holder is derelict in his
duty then why not give him a kick, he wanted the protection of the patent badly
enough to take one out.
As for limitations I only see it as implementing the original purpose of the
patent which was to protect the inventor and not create a trading market.
Yes, the patent office needs much better standards. On suggestion I have made
before is that the fees are linked to quality. For example, a refund of part of
the fee is given if the patent is accepted but kept if it is reject turning 'how
can we get money by allowing patents' into 'how can we make money by rejecting
them'. Also, if a patent is re-examined and thrown out then the patent office
should be charged. That would need to be done through a 3rd party for obvious
reasons.
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 12:50 AM EDT |
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 is
denied.
Why not BOTH? ie the Inventor/patent holder has to
supply on application a working model of the patent, and on demand at any
time [the same], and hire those practised in the art to so do from the
patent.
The inventor/holder supplied model would be the definitive
description - any other creation which does not [almost] exactly match this
would be deemed to be non-infringing.
if the hired practitioner creates
something different then the patent can't be clearly describing the invention
and/or its method of creation and the patent would be denied [with prejudice -
one can but dream...back to reality...]
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 03:56 PM EDT |
The patent applicant should ALWAYS have access to a working model. If he
doesn't, then he hasn't "reduced the invention to practice" and
shouldn't be able to get a patent!
The issuance of a patent should be dependent on the existence of a working
demonstration of the patent. If the applicant is unable to demonstrate the
invention in action, then the patent does not issue. END OF.
(NB - "model" here simply means "a working version". It
could be the actual product.)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|