|
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, April 13 2013 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
The whole point of the patent system is to persuade people to publish trade
secrets.
As such, one of the first acts either granting a patent, or in persuing a
lawsuit, should be to value the trade secret.
Not sure quite how you'd then factor this in but maybe make the application fee
a percentage of the declared value? And equally make recoverable damages
likewise?
Snag is, I don't know how we'd get it to work out well.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 13 2013 @ 07:33 PM EDT |
If you email me, I can set up an account
for you.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 14 2013 @ 01:55 PM EDT |
That is, the patent and copyright clauses of the US constitution "offer to
inventors and authors exclusive rights to their creations for a limited
time". (enforced by the federal government, of course). That is the very
definition of "protection", though the framers used nicer words than I
just did: encouragement of progress.
So, we need to be discussing the terms of that bargain: What should be
patentable, for how long, and under what degree of disclosure, and what other
terms? I like spirit of the British approach, where licensing can become
mandatory, since the idea is to have the invention on sale where it can benefit
people.
And yes, I'm with PJ, something is really wrong with the way the bargains have
been going lately. Much too much is patentable, with way too little disclosure,
and an essentially random system that delays (and therefore denies) justice and
harms me as a consumer, not least because the managements of the various parties
we have been discussing are distracted with patent questions rather than
improving their products.
(Christenson)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|