2 oft heard ideas, both of which are trivially circumventable. If software patents are shorter, there's an even longer limbo period where your patent is pending. That kind of increase in confusion is only good news for firms that are all about patents and nothing else, i.e. the breeding ground for patent trolls. Also, do we adjust the time period every 5 years? Consider the rise of the 'new' smartphone. A lot has happened in very few years. Even a 3-5 year patent here, if rigidly enforced, would have been pretty bad.
Non-transferable is even worse. That does absolutely nothing to the patent trolls but hurts the very rare Joe Inventor quite a bit. You can buy a company and leave that company intact, injecting whatever lawyer power you need for that company to start the court cases. On Tuesday, August 9, 2011 8:57:40 PM UTC+2, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Robert Casto <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> What I would like to see is a shortening of the patent duration. They >> still get it, and can make money and are protected in doing so, but then >> after say 3-5 years, it becomes public knowledge usable by anyone. >> > > Agreed, I think it would help. I would also like to make patents non > transferable, which would take care of patent trolls once and for all > (including through company acquisitions, although I haven't thought much > about the consequences of this: the existence of patent portfolios is a > strong driver in big companies acquiring little ones, which I see as good > for the industry and innovation in general). > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/1YnVJEXBmDYJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
