Not so a patent. You have to sit down and do research. Prove that it's new, that nobody else has patented or publicly used it before.
Right but that's all some people do, is look for something new without any intent to implement it and then cash in when someone else tries to. It's also not as cumbersome nor expensive as you said in all cases:
"The normal amount we charge to process a UK patent application is GBP £230 - £280.
It is free to file a patent application with us."
Sure if you had the intent to cash in on it, you'd want to put some effort into doing it properly and you can pay whatever you want but your suggestion is that it's only for moderately wealthy individuals, which is wrong. The system is open for anyone to apply for a patent and a number of people do so with the sole intent of making money from the hard work of others and it can easily take less than a year to write up an application.
My suggestion is simply that once the patent has been approved, they need to show they are doing something with it within a reasonable time. If not, then they have no right to claim ownership of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Patents are not about implementations. They're about ideas. Copyrights are about implementations rather than ideas. You can write your next novel with the exact same idea as a copyrighted book, but if it's rewritten in your own words, you're safe.
Not quite because you can't create an implementation using the same idea someone has patented without licensing it from them. Books are different because the ideas are not protected, just the implementations of those ideas and it works much better than the patent system. It wouldn't work for the patent system because you may have to source manufacturing and investors so you need to make sure someone doesn't beat you to it but that's why a patent with time constraints would work out fine.
It would be nice if this happened to patent-squatters too. If you don't show an implementation of your idea within a reasonable time-frame then someone else can use it freely.
I agree but it would have to be much longer than a
120 days, heck Apple has quite a few but thevtech doesn't exist yet
It would be nice if this happened to patent-squatters too. If you don't show an implementation of your idea within a reasonable time-frame then someone else can use it freely.
What? Are you serious? Some of the best programmer's in the world are advocates of the free software movement. You've probably never heard of Richard Stallman. Do a little homework before you make uneducated statements. .
Of course I've heard of Richard Stallman. The difference, of course, is that I understand intellectual property better than you do and realize that it's intellectual property laws that make it possible to have most of the prevailing free software licenses.
You see, there's a difference between "I invented something and I wish to make it free for others to use" (Stallman) and "no one should ever be able to get a patent" (what you were advocating).
Of course I've heard of Richard Stallman. The difference, of course, is that I understand intellectual property better than you do and realize that it's intellectual property laws that make it possible to have most of the prevailing free software licenses.
You see, there's a difference between "I invented something and I wish to make it free for others to use" (Stallman) and "no one should ever be able to get a patent" (what you were advocating).
I'm pretty sure he's advocating for substance backing the patent approval rather than just having an idea and waiting to sue the person who can make the idea come to life.
As usual, jragosta posts an arrogant trollish comment stemming from pure ignorance.
Comments
Not so a patent. You have to sit down and do research. Prove that it's new, that nobody else has patented or publicly used it before.
Right but that's all some people do, is look for something new without any intent to implement it and then cash in when someone else tries to. It's also not as cumbersome nor expensive as you said in all cases:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p...ing/p-cost.htm
"The normal amount we charge to process a UK patent application is GBP £230 - £280.
It is free to file a patent application with us."
Sure if you had the intent to cash in on it, you'd want to put some effort into doing it properly and you can pay whatever you want but your suggestion is that it's only for moderately wealthy individuals, which is wrong. The system is open for anyone to apply for a patent and a number of people do so with the sole intent of making money from the hard work of others and it can easily take less than a year to write up an application.
My suggestion is simply that once the patent has been approved, they need to show they are doing something with it within a reasonable time. If not, then they have no right to claim ownership of it.
Patents are not about implementations. They're about ideas. Copyrights are about implementations rather than ideas. You can write your next novel with the exact same idea as a copyrighted book, but if it's rewritten in your own words, you're safe.
Not quite because you can't create an implementation using the same idea someone has patented without licensing it from them. Books are different because the ideas are not protected, just the implementations of those ideas and it works much better than the patent system. It wouldn't work for the patent system because you may have to source manufacturing and investors so you need to make sure someone doesn't beat you to it but that's why a patent with time constraints would work out fine.
It would be nice if this happened to patent-squatters too. If you don't show an implementation of your idea within a reasonable time-frame then someone else can use it freely.
I agree but it would have to be much longer than a
120 days, heck Apple has quite a few but thevtech doesn't exist yet
It would be nice if this happened to patent-squatters too. If you don't show an implementation of your idea within a reasonable time-frame then someone else can use it freely.
Amen! Thank you!!
What? Are you serious? Some of the best programmer's in the world are advocates of the free software movement. You've probably never heard of Richard Stallman. Do a little homework before you make uneducated statements. .
Of course I've heard of Richard Stallman. The difference, of course, is that I understand intellectual property better than you do and realize that it's intellectual property laws that make it possible to have most of the prevailing free software licenses.
You see, there's a difference between "I invented something and I wish to make it free for others to use" (Stallman) and "no one should ever be able to get a patent" (what you were advocating).
Of course I've heard of Richard Stallman. The difference, of course, is that I understand intellectual property better than you do and realize that it's intellectual property laws that make it possible to have most of the prevailing free software licenses.
You see, there's a difference between "I invented something and I wish to make it free for others to use" (Stallman) and "no one should ever be able to get a patent" (what you were advocating).
I'm pretty sure he's advocating for substance backing the patent approval rather than just having an idea and waiting to sue the person who can make the idea come to life.
As usual, jragosta posts an arrogant trollish comment stemming from pure ignorance.