The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
1–10 of 145 posts
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#2Parents are also a big part of why we have anything at all.
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#3Parents are also a big part of why we have anything at all.
There have been several historical studies done on the effects of patents on innovation, and the results are mixed. For an example of the "patents may hurt innovation" side, see http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.1.m1004.pdf , which argues that the steam engine patents actually held back the development of superior steam engines, reduced the total horsepower deployed, and even distracted Watt (the inventor) from his business.
I've seen more detailed studies of patent history (which I can no longer find, alas), and they make a good case that patents have an ambiguous effects on industrial innovation. I'm not sure if I believe these studies, but I don't think it's an open and shut case either way. Also, steam engines may have different issues than drug development, and drug developent may have different issues than software.
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#4Parents are also a big part of why we have anything at all.
Yes, parents are a big part. And patents are, too :-)
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#5Parents are also a big part of why we have anything at all.
[deleted]
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#6It's interesting to note Lexmark tried to (ab)use other kinds of so-called "intelectual property" laws earlier: the copyright law and DMCA. When they failed, they decided to use patents instead. And all this for what purpose? To prevent people from using cartridges manufactured by other companies, i.e. blocking competition and acting against free market and user rights. If this isn't abuse, I don't know what it is.
If you can't build a superior product supported by good marketing, don't try to save yourself by legal action. If you do, you only alienate your customers, the very people you should serve first.
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#7Just adding 2 words to the sentence feels more logical.
"Patents Are a Big Part of Why We Can’t Own Nice Things for free."
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#8The title is typical EFF bluster. This case is about a relatively narrow question on patent exhaustion, not a referendum on patents in general.
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#9The EFF chose a very bad / misleading title compared to what the article is actually about. A better one would be:
> Supreme Court to Rule on Whether Patent-Holders Can Control What You Do With Your Stuff
or something like that.
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#10Parents are also a big part of why we have anything at all.
There have been several historical studies done on the effects of patents on innovation, and the results are mixed. For an example of the "patents may hurt innovation" side, see http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.1.m1004.pdf , which argues that the steam engine patents actually held back the development of superior steam engines, reduced the total horsepower deployed, and even distracted Watt (the inventor) f…
If you're interested in a book length exploration of patents on the anti-patent side of the argument, I found this book to be well argued:
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=978052...