271–280 of 426 posts
No mention of Cloudflare’s own large portfolio of software patents. Wonder when they’ll start enforcing their patent on CNAME flattening, for example: https://patents.justia.com/patent/11159479 Edit; clarity
Why should there be a mention about their patents?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would suggest only for corporations above a certain size. I would appreciate if some old music composer somewhere gets to continue being old and stuff without worrying about this sort of thing.
A lot of patent trolls are very small companies though
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I offer as an alternative: IP is property, and it's taxed at the value you declare that it's worth. However, if you swear to the IRS that it's worth $500/yr, then you can't claim in court that a violation of it is costing you $10,000,000/yr in losses. That would be perjury. Your patent is worth $10,000,000? Awesome! I bet your local school district will love to hear how much you'll be paying in taxes on it.
Something like this genuinely does hurt very small businesses or inventors who invent something actually valuable but don't have time to quickly scale up. What I like for IP laws is as follows: When you create a protected work, you pay a very small fee. Say, $1 for copyright, maybe $500 for a patent. Each year thereafter, if you wish to maintain your IP protection, you must pay double what was paid the previous year.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No invention ever came out of nowhere, based on nothing more than hard work and selfless involvement Straw man. No-one has suggested that the inventor invented something in a complete vacuum without support from society.
And yet that's exactly what the patent model claims: The invention is the fruit of a single mind who must get the entirety of money ever produced by the commercialization of the product. It is a glorification of individualism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I offer as an alternative: IP is property, and it's taxed at the value you declare that it's worth. However, if you swear to the IRS that it's worth $500/yr, then you can't claim in court that a violation of it is costing you $10,000,000/yr in losses. That would be perjury. Your patent is worth $10,000,000? Awesome! I bet your local school district will love to hear how much you'll be paying in taxes on it.
Something I've wondered about - you specify a value and pay a tax accordingly. Anyone is then able to buy it from you for that price. Have some short term part for free, then fees scale over time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think will happen if IP becomes impossible to afford, as it surely will under such a policy? Do you think companies that value IP will bother investing further in R&D, let alone even stay in your country? Congratulations on the massive net loss in taxable income in your country. EDIT: Removed some mean words.
in the software ip case, they can invest in building competitive products in an open market. If your software IP is a secret then don’t publish!
You don't see how such a policy would spur terror among large, profitable companies with trade secrets, leading to them moving overseas?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably every pharmaceutical patent. In software? Um... . (But you asked "where patents" and not "where software patents", so...)
> Probably every pharmaceutical patent. Great, they've played their role, then. I'm ready for that stage to be over now. IMO if there's an incentive to manufacture distribute the product, let that be the incentive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in the software ip case, they can invest in building competitive products in an open market. If your software IP is a secret then don’t publish!
So, for example, the secret sauce that makes the CPLEX and Gurobi solvers tens or hundreds of times faster than open source equivalents should simply be released to the public, leading to the immediate loss of 90% of those products' competitive advantage? You don't see how such a policy would spur terror among large, profitable companies with trade secrets, leading to them moving overseas?
There needs to be a "use it or lose it" doctrine/law around technological IP. I get all the arguments around creating a market for the patent rights, but it just leads to these bottom feeders creating no value and increasing costs for the industry and consumers.
Would it be possible to pass a law that says you can't own a patch of land unless you develop it sufficiently for some public utility? You can't own it unless you build a house on it, or an office? What about all the rough land, that isn't close to a development yet, but is anticipated to be? If someone can tell me how a law like this has been shown to work, perhaps even in a limited case like densely populated zones, then I might be persuaded.