|
Authored by: albert on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT |
Some of your proposals have merit, but your time periods are too long. Patents
should not be granted on things that can't be built with existing technology.
The idea is absurd. Good ideas (good patents) are rather easy to monetize
quickly, hence my very short time limit proposals. A one year time limit on
software patents would eliminate most patent suits; and no other changes need be
made. Shortening the limits on devices would make the market more competitive.
It's not the purpose of patents to guarantee profits to the inventors, it's just
to give them a head start, by allowing a short time monopoly. 5 years is a
lifetime in software, 25 years is an eternity in devices, because technology
leapfrogs patents.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
Life span of a patent should be from the date it was filed; protection would be
included in the patent pending time. BUT any royalties (and any other costs)
paid in the pending period shall be refundable (with interest) if the patent is
rejected.
Similarly, any patent holder (piercing the veil, if a company does not have the
funds, to the board of a company) would be liable to restore anyone to the state
they were before any patent royalties (and other costs) were paid if a patent is
later declared void on re-examination. [In the UK, as a legal
"person" a company can be the director of another company and as such,
if that company was set up as a shell to provide litigation for a dubious
patent, it would go straight back to the parent company.]
This may seem draconian, but the patent holder has benefited effectively due to
fraud (aided and abetted by the USPTO).
Prior art would be from the date the latest filing (either initial or later
amendment) is made on the patent otherwise a patent could be amended to take
into account stuff published AFTER its initial filing, but before its granting.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|