Untitled topic

Post by M8R-fhlcjm » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 11:52 PM UTC

marshray wrote: post #40

M8R-fhlcjm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which element do you want me to support?: 1) R&D costs money 2) investors look for return on their investment 3) corporations continuously look to reduce costs Perhaps it is you who is continuing the echo chamber.

You could start by backing up the statements patents provided the incentive to innovate and $spend on R&D in America, and and now free for all to copy and especially Without patents, smart investors will start to look at where they can most cheaply copy American innovations . It would be especally impressive if you could show that all these putative benefits were, in fact, a net gain over all the very tangible downsi…

Post by ars » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 11:53 PM UTC

Osiris wrote: post #10

I've been thinking lately that with the number of patents in existence, the likelihood that a newly submit patent application is truly novel without any invalidating prior art is probably very low. The USPTO should start each review under the premis that the application will probably be denied unless the application includes sufficient justification for it being truly novel. If the USPTO started denying the majority…

Post by shardling » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 11:56 PM UTC

programminggeek wrote: post #39

I think this is actually a bad thing because at a certain point it discourages innovation and the creation of new things because competitors will just copy whatever you create. I'm not for patent trolls making money for simply owning someone else's invention, but I feel like if you invent something, patent your invention, and build a real product around that invention, then the patent should be upheld. Otherwise, you…

Post by felipeko » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 11:57 PM UTC

cmelbye wrote: post #19

mtgx wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying you can't use drop-down menus on the web, because one site did it first. I'm not saying in other cases that it might not have taken longer for the others to figure it out (months, years?). I'm saying that they shouldn't be able to patent something as easy to implement as that for 17 years, or whatever the patent age is. Maybe if the patent system made a bit more sense, we wouldn't be so much agains…

You obviously misunderstand patents, as they have absolutely nothing to do with how easy something is to implement. They're awarded to companies that take risks, research, and invent something new. It's a fundamental mistake to write off a "simple" invention as easy to come up with, obvious, a no-brainer, etc. Simplicity is difficult.

Post by shmerl » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 11:59 PM UTC