151–160 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds ridiculous to me... By the same logic, I could patent a car that is charged by USB (not very efficient, but eh, it's new !) and then nobody could build a car charged via USB ?
You've correctly identified how patents work, at least in the U.S.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the cost of doing this. If it gets overturned, the defendant shouldn’t be the one to bear the cost. I’d be happy with either 1) the patent owner or 2) the patent office, who didn’t do its job properly.
The UK and USA patent offices, I understand, have procedures to file evidence showing a patent application is not valid - eg because of the 'invention' already being known. Your comment seems to relate more to unfairness in [lack of] awards of costs in USA legal proceedings. If you sue me for something I didn't do then it shouldn't cost me anything; that seems reasonable whether the domain is IPR or any other aspect…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be an interesting experiment - a world where no patents exist, only production (though corporate espionage / theft is still illegal). Some argue that this will effectively kill R&D, because the second you've created something - others would start reverse engineering, and copy the product. In some areas, like pharma, R&D is notoriously expensive, and the pharma companies have only that many years to recoup al…
> Some argue that this will effectively kill R&D, because the second you've created something - others would start reverse engineering, Reverse engineering is not needed - it's time-consuming, expensive and error-prone. The large incumbents would simply poach away key people and have that R&D in a month! As much as some people hate to admit it, intellectual property laws have their place. Are they perfect? Not in my…
This reads to me like those key people have no incentive to stay after applying their knowledge to the org.
The concept of intellectual property is antithetical to how humans have progressed socially and technologically for millenia. It's a wasteful aberration that strangles innovation with red tape and hands control of our culture over to those with the financial mean to claim to own it. The day we wrest back that control will be a good day.
The legal definition of novelty and obviousness is nonsensical. The duration is far too long. The USPTO does a terrible job of screening for quality. The court enforcement is little more than a high-stakes game of chance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first patent was issued in the 1400's — it is exactly how humans have progressed technologically and sociality. Let's stop being so absolutist about these topics. The problem here isn't that patents exist, intellectual property protection is critical to investment and research. The issue here is two fold: 1. Patents usually involve a lot of research — and existed as a way to ensure that competition couldn't imita…
The first patents were not about innovation at all but essentially government guaranteed monopolies similar to guilds. > 1. Patents usually involve a lot of research — and existed as a way to ensure that competition couldn't imitate your product without also making that investment, licensing it from you, etc. If there was no protection, they would immediately undercut you since they don't have investment costs to cov…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Patents almost never describe processes and technology with sufficient detail to reproduce them (in fact many companies will purposefully not patent those things they consider central to their business, to keep them secret) and are instead written so broad as to just create a moat to prevent any newcomers from entering. That's pretty false. The requirement for a patent in the US is that it is detailed enough that a…
Patents are in principle supposed to be non-obvious, and detailed enough that an expert in the domain can reproduce the invention from the description. I can assure you that in practice they are neither. There are merely a lot of people in the legal profession whose jobs depend on ignoring that fact.
Having written some patents that has not been my experience.
For example, this is one of the patents in the lawsuit:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/67/67/7c/1299b0c...
This patent includes network diagrams, actual C data structure, technical terminology galore, etc, etc. It's got a ton more implementation details versus, for example, a scientific publication on this topic.
Like, seriously, it's got 20+ page of this technical implementation details and not bland lawyer jargon:
>The second redirection mechanism, which is specified as a future extension of NDTP is having the server return an NDTP RDR RSP message in response to an NDTP request for which the NDTP server has no ownership of the supplied identifier string. Those skilled in the art will note that unlike the embedded redirection links mechanism, the NDTP RDR RSP mechanism applies to all NDTP requests, not just NDTP GET.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The first patent was issued in the 1400's — it is exactly how humans have progressed technologically and sociality. The last 600 years is a rounding error in the history of humans. Imagine if the different methods of lighting a fire were patented. Those humans also burned witches and imprisoned people for criticizing the church. We would have a better world if our goal was progress for all over profit for a few.
And yet, it turns out last 600 years saw many orders of magnitude more innovation than the years prior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The first patent was issued in the 1400's — it is exactly how humans have progressed technologically and sociality. The last 600 years is a rounding error in the history of humans. Imagine if the different methods of lighting a fire were patented. Those humans also burned witches and imprisoned people for criticizing the church. We would have a better world if our goal was progress for all over profit for a few.
> Imagine if the different methods of lighting a fire were patented. It would have implied a better, more developed society. It would implied that there is a writing system. It would have implied that there was a way to store records long term. It would have implied that there was a long distance communication system. It would have implied the existence of some state and rule of law. It would have implied some type o…
The concept of intellectual property is antithetical to how humans have progressed socially and technologically for millenia. It's a wasteful aberration that strangles innovation with red tape and hands control of our culture over to those with the financial mean to claim to own it. The day we wrest back that control will be a good day.
If there were no patents most of them would just be kept as secrets, and you would, for the most part, get right back where you started(if not in a worse position)
Modern engineers of varying sorts can reverse engineer basically any process and underpaid employees who know the secrets can be easily poached. Therefore, the entire concept of patents existing for the sake of disclosure falls flat on its face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Universities are incentivized to research things that will score grant money.
Grant money is not profit.