decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Worthless? Not so | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Worthless? Not so
Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 06:44 AM EDT
Unfortunately, two quick arguments (among many) are not on
your side:
1. There are a number of very narrow patents in the USPTO -
so the idea that a narrow patent is worthless is wrong.
2. There are a number of broad patents that stopped
"Progress in the Useful Arts and Sciences" (the purpose of
US Copyright & Patent) - for example the Wright Brothers,
who so stopped US development of aircraft that we had to buy
them from the Europeans when we entered WWI, and that the
Government had to step in to enable progress again.

Remember, the purpose of Patents in the US is NOT to make
maximum money for a person/company. That is, at best a
means (the "limited monopoly" of the patent clause in the
Constitution). The purpose, as I stated above, is to
promote "Progress in the Useful Arts and Sciences." Narrow
patents actually help that - by giving people an incentive
to develop and patent a workaround to another patent.
Overly broad patents serve to shut off the debate &
development (see 2 above).

---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )