How to stop piracy. Part II

Patents have a maximum "life" of 20 years, from the date of filing, which is not too far from the 17year statute (from date of issue) of a couple of decades ago. It's not exactly forever.

As is their right. Most will license their IP though. It costs money to keep patents in force. Most companies would like to see a return on that.

How do you define "making money". Perhaps they're making a *lot* of money by *not* manufacturing the widget, or perhaps the market isn't ready for the widget yet. Most new technologies take *years* to bring to the market, some never make it. You'd strip patent rights for products that may be five years away?

No, we all gain from patents. Technology is taught by the patent. Without patents these companies, you so hate, would simply make everything a trade secret. They'd still hold the cards but others would not have the knowledge.

Nowadays, 20 yrs is "forever." Most products have a lifetime of say 3 yrs.

Yes, they should, but for a limited time.

I define "making money" as selling the item to the public. If a patent or a copyright exists and no one is selling, it is not "making money." Yes, yes development costs and all that. But if you fail to market your invention because you are incompetent, and someone else has the same idea and can make a success of it, they should have the right to do so without your interference.

I recently read an article where the author has a "patent" that to me is patently ( ;-) ) ridiculous. His patent is that someone who adds a tip to a check at a restaurant can use a percentage of the total meal to give a tip rather than a dollar amount. In my opinion, this should never have been granted.

I read recently an article that showed us how progress can be made without patents. On page 6 of the IEEE Life Members Newsletter (4th and

"Within a year Sylvania announced their production of color receivers available for sale."

"With no color broadcasting yet available, we set priorities for color broadcasting methods..."

"Our group went to work. We finally designed a....and was adopted into the industry."

"Sylvania did not want to patent this process and gave Frank Fleming and me the authorization to capitalize on the design."

Yikes, what a forward looking company. Since receivers were available, but no transmitters were available, the company released the technology to the public so there could be progress.

Yes, they made money on selling TVs. But they did not stifle innovation by trying monopolize the situation.

If you consider color television progess, part of it was done without a patent.

Al

Not really. At least 99% of the patents have zero invention height. They are there for :

Rene

Without

trade

You forget:

We had a guy rock up at work wanting to sell us (for a mere $1 Million) his 'patent' for his 'idea', which consisted of making up the term "satellite cellular internet timer". No, there were no other details involved. He had a letter from the patent office saying have a nice day, and one from Motorola which quite beautifully said the same worse without saying it, and adding that they weren't interested either. (I should have kept a copy.) Plus a letter from another company which suggested medical help.

Ken

A lobotomy, or an enema? ;-)

here).

his

"satellite

had a

Motorola

adding

I have a feeling neither would have gone astray. :)

Ken

Are you saying that he needed a "twofer"?

Let's just say if he bent over and said "Fix my brain." you wouldn't know which end to start at. Nor would it matter all that much.

Ken

Speaking of lawyers, wasn't it Shakespeare who said, "First, we kill all the lawyers", or was it Plato or Socrates or somebody? I wonder what percentage of the 3000 or so victims of the 9/11 disaster were lawyers or in the employ of lawyers? I'd bet a paycheck that more than 50% of them had law degrees, and it's a sure bet that better than 90% of them were rich and white.

I wonder if Der Fuehrer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HHomeland Security will start monitoring my on-line stuff now. ;-P

Cheers! Rich

A good example of this is doing war time, the government doesn't abolish patents but sometimes greatly restricts them, as everyone knows much progess is made during war time, the Wright brothers patent on aircraft control and WWI is a good example as any

"The Wright Brothers held several key patents on the airplane, and rightly so. Another inventor by the name of Glenn Curtiss (who coincidentally, was backed by Alexander Graham Bell) held patents on some additional aeronautic technology including ailerons, empennage, and a new engine. The Wrights wouldn't license their patents to Curtiss. Curtiss tried to build planes faster than the Wrights could litigate, and tried to invalidate some of their claims based on prior art from Langely and others. Years and years were wasted as these guys battled it out. Others also tried to build planes using the Wright innovations, but were largely stymied by the Wrights' demand for very high royalties. Meanwhile, Europe was progressing to flight at a rapid pace. Then WWI broke out.

: The United States government finally put an end to the patent strife in

(excerpt from the web site

Sounds like a job for a six foot "Diversibit" ;-)