 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium join:2002-09-03 Smithfield, NC | About time I hope this curbs the abuse. | |
|
 |  |
 atuarreHere come the drumsPremium join:2004-02-14 College Station, TX | RE While I agree that a reform is necessary, I think this type of reform is just another way for one company to use the same kind of technology, that was developed by another company, and to make it much more difficult for the company where the technology originated to protect its intellectual rights and designs.
If that is the case, then perhaps we should have every major company re-submit their patents and see if they pass or fail in a post reform world. I guarantee you will not see Google, Apple, or IBM rush to step up to the plate to re-submit those patents. | |
|
 |  | | Re: RE said by atuarre:While I agree that a reform is necessary, I think this type of reform is just another way for one company to use the same kind of technology, that was developed by another company, and to make it much more difficult for the company where the technology originated to protect its intellectual rights and designs. Good comments. The large tech companies have a lot to gain here, and they are not just worried that patents are too easy to get. The Supreme Court just fixed that two months ago. They use the patents of others, a lot more than others use their patents.
They want patent rights to depend on how quickly you file your official patent application, which is fine if you are a big company with a lot of lawyers on retainer. Raising the bar for getting a patent is OK, but making it harder/more expensive to go through the process is not OK and is self-serving. | |
|
 |  |  vicorjhPremium join:2007-06-24 Arlington, MA | Re: RE Excellent. I agree with your analysis.
The end-game will simply benefit the large cash rich corporations and leave the small inventor in the dust.
The large portion of abuse(s) in the current patent system could likely be handled by requiring the patent holder to show that they have actually produced a product containing the patent subject (if they being an infringement suit). It seems to me that many of these IP holding firms have no intent or have never actually produced anything based on the patents they file (most of which seem to be obvious or based on prior art/implementation). | |
|
 |
 yockTFTCPremium join:2000-11-21 Miamisburg, OH kudos:3 | Beware Beware of companies with large patent portfolios supporting patent reform. I'm not saying that patent reform isn't needed, but lets make sure that the changes will actually help. -- Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's creation." | |
|
 |  sbrookPremium,Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa kudos:4 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Re: Beware Indeed. I think that patents need to apply to more than something like a "window", or a "hyperlink" or a "click box".
Generic concepts for doing things should not be patentable. Novel approaches for doing things are what should be patentable. And no claiming patents on things that are already in the public domain unless they display a granted patent reference. Pat Pending is not good enough. How many years were can openers "Pat Pending"? | |
|
 kaila join:2000-10-11 Lincolnshire, IL | Don't stop with patents...... We need copyright reforms as well. | |
|
 |  ricep5Premium join:2000-08-07 Jacksonville, FL | Re: Don't stop with patents...... said by kaila:We need copyright reforms as well. Agreed, the "Disney" effect of having Congress extend the copyright expiration to protect Mickey is getting out of hand.
Public Domain is there for a reason. | |
|
 |  |  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium join:2002-09-03 Smithfield, NC | Re: Don't stop with patents...... Yes, but unfortunately all the corporations are on the other side in that one. | |
|
 | | patent abuse make non-confidential disclosure agreements illegal too | |
|
 Aleck79 join:2003-07-23 College Station, TX | effect on Microsoft's claims about linux? I wonder what type of effect that this would have for these claims. It said it would "make challenges easier" but i guess so far microsoft hasn't said what to challenge.
hopefully it will help here. | |
|
 |  jasso join:2004-11-15 Chico, TX | Re: effect on Microsoft's claims about linux? I'm pretty sure Microsoft's claims of patent infringement by Linux/Unix are just that, claims. They have had over a decade to analyze the Linux kernel (it's not exactly kept a secret, is it). Yet even after the claims of infringement, they still haven't filed a case against developers. If they haven't yet, they never will. Most people realize that the only reason Microsoft is going after Linux is because it is more of a threat now then it used to be to them. And since they can't buy out something that is spread freely, they are going to try to scare people away from it. | |
|
 81399672Premium join:2006-05-17 Los Angeles, CA kudos:2 | Bad Idea Really bad idea, what it will mean is you produce a product and someone can change it a little and it will hard for you to sue them in court -- i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet | |
|
 |
 |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Re: Ban software patents ! Agreed. Software is protected by copyright. If someone writes their own code to do something you already did, you shouldn't be able to sue them for it--- unless they stole YOUR code. | |
|
 |
|