|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 10:04 AM EDT |
"a patent "allows you to sue" if someone is infringing your
invention, yes. But it's not intended to be used as a weapon
to go sue any and everyone that makes something similar to
your invention, much less an improvement upon it."
Agreed.
"The whole point of patents in the first place was to promote innovation.
Instead of copying someone else's invention, people were forced to think of new,
different ways of achieving the same goal, instead of just copying another
guy."
Agreed. Although, sometimes someone has previously invented every way to
achieve a goal.
"i.e. instead of just copying the bicycle powered mechanical
generator, i was forced to think outside the box and find a
new way to do it. a better way. The regenerative braking
mechanical generator. But since you were 'incorrectly'
awarded a patent for a broad idea of a mechanical generator,
it means no other person can ever create another mechanical
generator. So for 25 years, everyone has to use your
unimaginative solution and pedal away."
Here you lose me. You say the invention was a bicycle powered generator. If
that were the case your regenerative system would not be block. In any event,
you are not blocked from inventing and patenting your regenerative system. If
the invention was broader than bicycle powered. If what was invented was
mechanically powered generator (and since that's what the claim says, else you
wouldn't be complaining, that must be what was invented) then you have a problem
because a COMPONENT of your invention is patented by someone else.
That problem is overcome-able. Buy that component from the patent owner or
someone he has licensed to sell them Or get a license from the patent owner.
Yet another solution is to cross license each others invention.
"How does the system you are arguing for promote innovation?
If anything, it is stifling innovation. Which is exactly why
we here at Groklaw are against most patents - especially
broad, generalizing patents that describe ideas more so than
an actual invention."
It promotes innovation by encouraging everyone to be first. It promotes
innovation by creating a library of documents that describe how to do new
things. Yes, because a series of court decisions have punished inventors for
being specific, patents are written in broad terms and the uninitiated have a
hard time understanding them. But, once you get used to the style, most of them
can be understood. Moreover, once an application is filed, the inventor is free
to talk about his invention on Charlie Rose or to publish articles about it in
the jargon of the art since he now has some protection. Without the patent
system, most inventions would be held as trade secrets.
If a patent issues with broad claims, you must keep in mind that an examiner has
tried to find instances of anything that falls within that broad language and
has failed. Accordingly, the judgement is made that the inventor invented the
broad category of the invention.
Is the system to correct errors to expensive? Yes. Should we try to prevent
errors. Yes. Should we try to improve the court process? Yes.
But eliminating patents is not the solution.
Groklaw seems to not read the claims of patents and instead reacts to the title.
A patent covering only a very specific method of calculating an FFT using a
very specific feature of a very specific DSP will nonetheless often have the
title : Fast Fourier Transform. Read the Claims.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|