Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gatorguy 
An argument in support might be that those selling higher-priced devices get more revenue per device and thus derive more value from the IP. It's only "fair" to share in their success since that IP made your product possible in the first place.
That's rather silly logic.
The technologies in question involve things like making phone calls or data transfer. Why would a phone call be more valuable or the transfer of data be more valuable because it was made from an expensive phone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ljocampo
Five years from product launch in the electronics industry is a lifetime. Would you buy a five year old Mac? iPhone? Let's say the law was fixed to say software or any computer code can not be copyrighted and only given as a patent, then you apply and get an interim patent from the prototype and when the product is launched you get only five years exclusivity. A marketing lifetime. Then it must be put in the public domain, no exceptions. Watch the never-ending lawsuits fade to manageable proportions.
First, even in the electronics industry, patents are valuable for much longer than 5 years. Ask Intel how long it has been working on 22 nm process technology or 3D transistor technology.
Second, the electronics industry is not the only industry out there. In the pharmaceutical industry, you're lucky if you can even get your product on the market in 10 years. What do you suggest - that every industry should have a different patent life? So now we can add an entirely new battle to the patent regime (as everyone wants to fight over what category their patent is in)?
And then, of course, you get into the arbitrary distinction between software and hardware. Is the code Intel uses in a CPU's firmware hardware or software?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ljocampo
Sure the little inventor who can"t find venture capital will have to sell his ideas until he/she earns enough or finds funding. That's life. I can't afford to prototype my ideas either. Just as Apple would need to file things with the regulators before they make certain things, manufacturers will be mandated to do a patent search for interim applications. Just like they have to do now. Stiff penalties for copy infringement can protect the victim's R&D.
Think about it. If the small inventor can't get a patent, who's going to pay him for his invention? Big companies can just steal it. Or, at the very least, the big company has all the leverage, so the small guy gets screwed big time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ljocampo
Jragosta, you are always being cynical and bad-mouthing or belittling posters here, so I never expect anything different from you, but at least I made a layman's solution. Since you are obviously expert in all things technology (or think you are), how about giving us solutions instead of criticizing other when they try.
I don't need to have a solution to know a terrible idea when I see one.
But since you ask, my solution would be for patent cases to be heard by a panel of paid experts in the field of technology covered by the patent. Loser pays the legal expenses for the winner. And get USPTO to hire subject matter experts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ljocampo
As usual the rest of your tripe doesn't deserve my time to answer. Gimme a break with the nuke plant. Sheesh! Is there a single patent for a nuclear power plant or a whole facility of any kind for that matter? I could go on but I won't.
There are thousands (probably tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) of patents involving a nuclear plant. If I design a new fuel configuration, for example, and if your proposal is adopted (requiring me to show a working model to the patent office), how do I prove that it works without building a nuclear plant?
