11–20 of 80 posts
I don't really understand who benefits from this change? Doesn't everyone lose?
I'm pretty sure the USPTO and Patent Attorneys win, given that it'll encourage more people to file patents, and sooner rather than later. Not sure of the impact on innovation, but my gut instinct isn't good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure the USPTO and Patent Attorneys win, given that it'll encourage more people to file patents, and sooner rather than later. Not sure of the impact on innovation, but my gut instinct isn't good.
The number of applications consisting of just ideas, that haven't been implemented, tested, or tried, is going to sky rocket. And who can afford to file so many patents? The "big" established guys. Things just got worse.
Out of curiosity, what kind of protection does the system offer against companies in certain markets patenting against potential innovations in these markets by inventors?
This property is unfortunately not generally present in patents once patent lawyers are done broadening the scope of possible 'embodiments' and rendering the language unintelligible.
I remember an article about SpaceX where Musk said that they didn't file many patents, because then other countries essentially had free access to their inventions if they didn't honour patents (China was mentioned). With this change in law, they may no longer have protection against a patent filed by someone else that they (SpaceX) invented first...simply because they were not the first to file. This may bring about…
I'd rather transition to a system where if two people try to file for the same thing within a few months or a year of each other, neither one gets it because it's probably pretty obvious.
I remember an article about SpaceX where Musk said that they didn't file many patents, because then other countries essentially had free access to their inventions if they didn't honour patents (China was mentioned). With this change in law, they may no longer have protection against a patent filed by someone else that they (SpaceX) invented first...simply because they were not the first to file. This may bring about…
They only had a very limited protection before. First year of use, only shown in public in certified trade shows IIRC.
This is how patents work, they require publication to enrich the knowledge pool and the return for that publication is time-limited government granted monopoly.
If SpaceX can demonstrate prior use then no later filed patent can, if the law is correctly applied, prevent their continued working of that specific invention.
The point is to put pressure on inventors to file, that's one of the two major purposes of the patent system (the other being to ensure due compensation of inventors).
I'd rather transition to a system where if two people try to file for the same thing within a few months or a year of each other, neither one gets it because it's probably pretty obvious.
I'd rather transition to a system where if two people try to file for the same thing within a few months or a year of each other, neither one gets it because it's probably pretty obvious.
Then you could stop each others patents just by filing a copy...
Because I think a whole load of really obvious rubbish gets patented at the moment, but I do think the foundations of the patent system and the utility of patents ought to be salvaged.
I'd rather transition to a system where if two people try to file for the same thing within a few months or a year of each other, neither one gets it because it's probably pretty obvious.
What if both of them put real effort (money) into research and arrived at similar/same place? Should it be dismissed as well? Or is there something as joint patent?
Like naughty children, either you share nicely or nobody's having any cake!
:)