I ma sorry to disappoint you but in the real industrial practice around, beyond, and above the patent description there exist critical elements of Know What, Know How, Know Why and in some cases Know Who. If you buy a licence you pay for the patent but also for the other technical issues. Peter
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Rob Dingemans <manonbrid...@aim.com>wrote: > Dear Jed et al, > > > On 22-1-2013 20:47, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Rob Dingemans <manonbrid...@aim.com> wrote: > > >> This exactly why this and associated patent(s) should be placed in the >> Open source domain, so each and everyone can benefit from this knowledge. >> > > All patents are open-source, by definition. They are made public. They > have been since they were invented in the 1600s. That is the whole point of > a patent. > > A patent has to teach a person skilled in the art how to replicate the > invention. It has to make that knowledge fully public. If it fails to do > this, and someone challenges the patent, it will be ruled invalid. > > - Jed > > > I know and yes you are right, but I guess I wasn't clear enough what I > meant. > Let me try to rephrase my thoughts. > > What I mean, is that no-one can claim whatever ownership and therefore > obtain money for the knowledge disclosed in the patent, as this knowledge > is way to important for humanity to be prevented from to be applied in > general use. > Of course an inventor is to be linked to the patent(s), so this person can > be seen as someone that has brought a (great) contribution for the field. > > Kind regards, > > Rob > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
