- Status
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]And this is the reason we're better of without it.Another flaw in the patent system is that you don't need to be the inventor of a technology to patent it. Also one should only be able to patent something if at has a prototype for the technology.[/citation]
The solution is not to stop issuing patents, but for the government to stop encouraging the filing of stupid patents and issue reasonable guidelines. The solution to a broken system is not to get rid of the system altogether and have a free-for all, but rather to reform the system and fix the parts that are wrong. Part of this reform could include your two suggestions, though I think the second is of questionable equity.
The solution is not to stop issuing patents, but for the government to stop encouraging the filing of stupid patents and issue reasonable guidelines. The solution to a broken system is not to get rid of the system altogether and have a free-for all, but rather to reform the system and fix the parts that are wrong. Part of this reform could include your two suggestions, though I think the second is of questionable equity.
[citation][nom]SAL-e[/nom]Second, Saying that MONOPOLIES promote innovation is like saying that "Credit promotes wealth." Credit only allows you to spend money now, that might be earned later and you pay dear price in the form of interest for that "convenience". So my questions are: What is 'the interest' we pay for using the patent system and is it worthed at all?[/citation]
I don't think the parallels hold between credit and monopolies, but that doesn't matter because patents are not monopolies. In the US, they are valid for only 20 years at the expiration of which time they may be extended at the discretion of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Besides, they may also be sold or the rights to them leased. I would hardly call these conditions a "monopoly".
I don't think the parallels hold between credit and monopolies, but that doesn't matter because patents are not monopolies. In the US, they are valid for only 20 years at the expiration of which time they may be extended at the discretion of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Besides, they may also be sold or the rights to them leased. I would hardly call these conditions a "monopoly".
Mithrandir95
Distinguished
- Jun 26, 2009
- 6
- 1
- 18,515
[citation][nom]Bolbi[/nom]No; the purpose of patents is to protect and foster innovation by making sure inventors who do the heavy lifting for new technological advancements can actually reap the benefits of their hard work. Patent law helps protect them from the theft of their intellectual property.[/citation]
This is what patent system was supposed to work.
This is what patent system was supposed to work.
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
Motorola and Microsoft will agree to settle out of court for some fee anyway; I think these accusations are more symbolic than anything else.
[citation][nom]Bolbi[/nom]I don't think the parallels hold between credit and monopolies, but that doesn't matter because patents are not monopolies. In the US, they are valid for only 20 years at the expiration of which time they may be extended at the discretion of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Besides, they may also be sold or the rights to them leased. I would hardly call these conditions a "monopoly".[/citation]
You really don't know the history of the word "patent". The first patent letters have been issued by European Monarchs in order to give exclusive right to ownership and possession of something like coffee trade, gold trade, and etc. (a.k.a monopoly).
When the printing press become widely available the monarchs start requiring a "printing patent" (later it become copyright) in order to ensure that only approved by the government books are printed. (a.k.a. censorship).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
"As state-granted monopolies, patents have been criticized as inconsistent with free trade. On that basis, in 1869 the Netherlands abolished patents, and did not reintroduce them until 1912."
Just because the patent is issued for 20+ years it does not make it less of monopoly. In fact 20+ years period is like millennium in the fast moving world of the software.
You really don't know the history of the word "patent". The first patent letters have been issued by European Monarchs in order to give exclusive right to ownership and possession of something like coffee trade, gold trade, and etc. (a.k.a monopoly).
When the printing press become widely available the monarchs start requiring a "printing patent" (later it become copyright) in order to ensure that only approved by the government books are printed. (a.k.a. censorship).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
"As state-granted monopolies, patents have been criticized as inconsistent with free trade. On that basis, in 1869 the Netherlands abolished patents, and did not reintroduce them until 1912."
Just because the patent is issued for 20+ years it does not make it less of monopoly. In fact 20+ years period is like millennium in the fast moving world of the software.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Faceoff — it isn't even close- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
Question I have an old system in the basement that has really basic specs, but am planning to give it just a little uplift with an RTX 5060 ti 16gb- Started by Guy_who_thinks_hes_cool
- Replies: 8
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Question A scared question but I have to ask...
- Started by Guy_who_thinks_hes_cool
- Replies: 3
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram