Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In many countries, patent holders must periodically prove that they're actually using the patent. Not so in the US.
This means that it's difficult to innovate without a high risk of ending up in court being sued for patent infringement of patents that were filed with zero intention of actually materializing onto the market. Instead, it's used as a money trap for future innovators who might invent something even tangentially related.
Do you think this squelches human progress and that the government should stop backing patent hoarders?
Something we can agree on! There is a lot of issues with current patent system. Other issues besides the one you outlined include the pace of technology is so rapid these days some patents outlive the usefulness of the tech. Patents are designed to protect the inventor for set period or time and allow that tech to flow into the public domain, they are not doing that if the tech is obsolete quickly. Another problem is the absurdity of some patents. If you look at the lawsuits between Samsung and Apple as one example they revolve around things like rounded corner on icons, location of buttons and how they operate.
I think these are much larger issues that someone holding a patent and not using it. You can eliminate a lot of that by eliminating the absurd ones.
I don’t know too much about the whole thing ..... except that my spouse holds 4 patents & my son holds 6 or seven. They don’t actually hold them or control them, there employer owns them. All are in use.
Another problem is the absurdity of some patents. If you look at the lawsuits between Samsung and Apple as one example they revolve around things like rounded corner on icons, location of buttons and how they operate.
There's nothing absurd about these patents. If someone does all the work (psychology research, human behavioral research, anthropological research) to understand the impact and effectiveness of types of buttons and their locations, they should be able to patent the inventions supported by that research.
I know people like you think that research driven results (medicine and tech would fit in this category) should not be patentable, but that's exactly what patents are for.
I don’t know too much about the whole thing ..... except that my spouse holds 4 patents & my son holds 6 or seven. They don’t actually hold them or control them, there employer owns them. All are in use.
My guess is that is pretty common.
Basically you invent something unique, something no one thought of before. When you patent it that gives you exclusive rights to use that technology in your own product or license it to someone else. It's critical part of capitalism, not a whole lot of incentive to work at something for years only to have someone steal your work once you figure it out. Typical patent only lasts for 20 years though, once it expires anyone can use it.
Fundamentally it's a fantastic idea but the system is being abused beyond the intentions. I don't agree necessarily agree with the OP's opinion where someone has to prove they are using a patent. Instead you pare down what can be patented.
One of the poster childs for abuse was Amazon's one click patent. If someone was logged into site and had their information on file they can order something with one click. This is not something unique, it's like adding 1 + 1 but they were able to patent it. They solved an issue with a common sense solution, they just happened to be the first to need to do that.
When you can obtain a patent on rectangle with rounded corners that is absurd. You are going to put a button on device where someone's thumb might be? What an astounding feat of ingenuity.
When you can obtain a patent on rectangle with rounded corners that is absurd. You are going to put a button on device where someone's thumb might be? What an astounding feat of ingenuity.
You would be completely wrong.
You demonstrated it in your previous post. I'm not arguing it, you are.
The only thing I have commented on or have given examples of is absurd patents.
Yes, and your examples include research driven results (medicine and tech would fit in this category). You do not agree with patents for research driven innovation, per your post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a lot of issues with current patent system. Other issues besides the one you outlined include the pace of technology is so rapid these days some patents outlive the usefulness of the tech. Patents are designed to protect the inventor for set period or time and allow that tech to flow into the public domain, they are not doing that if the tech is obsolete quickly. Another problem is the absurdity of some patents. If you look at the lawsuits between Samsung and Apple as one example they revolve around things like rounded corner on icons, location of buttons and how they operate.
