Authored by: N_au on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 07:46 AM EDT |
I agree it would be a start. A patent was to help you recover your development
costs, so if you don't sell something that practises the patent, you shouldn't
be able to sue someone over it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 08:24 AM EDT |
It is a nice idea. Unfortunately, the US Congress would be
hard pressed to come up with a definition of an NPE that
would do the job. I imagine that many of the NPE's have
close associations with various members of Congress or other
officials close to the issue.
Solutions to the patent troll problem cannot rely on
congressional legislation.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
No sale of patents. No trading of patents. Use by owner or license from owner
only.
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
I like the idea of a shall practice rule. If you hold a patent you shall
practice, or license to someone who does if there are any takers. This helps
establish the value, if any, of the patent.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mtew on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
The first problem that comes to mind is how to protect defensive pools like OIN.
(and how to prevent such pools from corruption by 'the dark side'.)
It might be better if a different angle of is used to attack the problem:
A major issue is the vague and incomplete description of the 'inventions'. I
remember that the PTO ran into storage trouble when it required models as part
of the submission but it was still a good idea. Maybe it would help if
submitting a working model that clearly practiced the invention to the court was
part of the requirement when asking for enforcement or when defending against
requests to invalidate the patent. (This would pretty much kill business method
patents?)
For physically large or expensive inventions where submission would be
impractical, court supervised access to the working model might be an
acceptable substitute.
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
The other way of making a huge dent is simply to require the plaintiff to
*demonstrate* the patent in action. Using the same apparatus that they
originally based the patent upon.
You always used to have to provide the patent office with a working model. You
should nowadays have to affirm that you have a working model, and you should
have to produce it to the court upon request.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|