That might also prove a disincentive to having big companies acquiring lots of little ones just to get hold of the patents. This might be a good thing i.e. all patents are invalidated if a company ceases to exist. This would not preclude a company existing as a subsidiary of another but at least the company would maintain identity in its own right.
On Aug 10, 2:23 pm, phil swenson <[email protected]> wrote: > In the no-transfer scenario, what happens in an acquisition? The > patent is just invalidated? > > 2011/8/9 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> 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. > > > Do explain. Let's say there is a 3 year deadline and no transfer right. A > > company or an inventor comes up with an idea and patents it. > > How does a patent troll take advantage of that patent? > > -- > > Cédric > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "The Java Posse" group. > > 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. 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.
