|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:43 AM EDT |
Let's not limit that to just software, shall we?
Seriously. This brain damage is not limited to software.
Swinging on a swing isn't software.
Gene patents on breast cancer genes hurt research, and those aren't software.
Patents on medicines against AIDS hurt basically everyone, and those aren't
software.
Thomas Watts nineteenth century patents on the steam engine, for crying out
loud, already showed quite convincingly that patents hurt innovation.
This "patents promote innovation" claptrap has been going on since the
dawn of the patent system. It's just not true. Patently, provably, undeniably
false.
Just end patents.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 11:32 AM EDT |
Of course they granted the patents. Congress earns extra money in any patent
fees collected by the USPTO, on demand. The more patents that are granted by the
USPTO the more Congress gets as its cut of the action at the end of the FY. Need I say more?
For many years, Congress has "diverted" about 10% of
the fees that the USPTO collected into the general treasury of the United
States. In effect, this took money collected from the patent system to use
for the general budget.
Now tell me again why Congress would
ever object to the way the USPTO rubber stamps invalid patents? The Judicial
branch is of course paid through the general budget is it not? So apparently
things have got to be pretty bad for them to act too. So I ask you, what it
wrong with this picture?
--- The Investors IP Law: The future health
of a Corporation is measured as the inverse of the number of IP lawsuits they
are currently litigating. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: albert on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
This is what I've been saying all along, it's all about the money. Bogo-patents
make even more money because of the very high 're-examine' fees.
It's win/win-more for the USPTO. There's NO downside for them!
Think about it.
Now what if they had to refund all fees for any invalidated patent? It's a
simple administrative rule change, which might be accomplished without an act of
InCongruous.
Eliminating offshore tax havens would bring in vastly more income than the USPTO
chump change.
It's a question of how much the gov't can squeeze the Big Boys before they
squeeze back.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|