[MW Forums]

Intel’s general counsel calls for patent reform to move forward in Congress. more

[hayesk]

The current patent system is clearly broken. Patents are there to encourage innovation - currently they do the opposite. A couple of ways I think this can be fixed:
- hire more patent inspectors to invalidate bogus patents (e.g. One-click from Amazon)
- prevent companies from buying patents that do not plan to use or license them at a reasonable rate. If you only own a patent to sue other people, then how is this encouraging innovation?
- harsher penalties for those that start frivolous lawsuits
any more?

[aestival]

Yes, profit margins are very tight in that low-stakes pharmaceutical business -- we should all be alarmed that they will stop investing in research if their margins are reduced by 5-10%. What a complete load of crap... and that from an industry where they routinely charge ten to a hundred times more for a product that only may have slight added benefits over existing treatments.
Imagine if Apple introduced an iPodTouch-X with a whopping 18GB of storage, for only $30,000! That's the pharmaceutical edge that we're supposed to be worried about protecting.

[Schneb]

Rule #1 - Use it or lose it. If you do not develop the idea or patent, you lose it to the next in line.

[Pennywigeon]

I am currently patenting the process of breathing (use of oxygen in bio environments). I will also be patenting the "Filing of a Lawsuit) in which any frivolous lawsuits filed they must pay me 2X what they are asking from the other party.
Considering patenting Sneezing too. What do you think? Would it be worth it? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[tomtom]

Yes if you can get away with it!
That's the crunch

[Schneb]

That has nothing to do with my post. Try reading it before commenting.
My friend had a medical device for back pressure breathing that would cost a fraction of a huge box unit presently used in hospitals. He could not patent it, because the big-box-boys were sitting on the patent for it--and not USING it! Hence, hospitals must buy the more expensive, less efficient big box version.
So yes, let's talk about patents for oxygen supply. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[IraSiegel]

Some people come up with innovations and share them with the world by filing for patent protection. What is wrong with their obtaining compensation for their innovations?

[kyle988]

Man I get to like Intel More and More with each day that goes by

[aestival]

Quote:

---

Some people come up with innovations and share them with the world by filing for patent protection. What is wrong with their obtaining compensation for their innovations?

---

Nothing at all. However, I would argue that there is something wrong with an inventor simply selling the patent to teams of lawyers who sit on it until they can use it maliciously in filing mammoth lawsuits (rather than ever even trying to get royalties). There is also something wrong with someone patenting an invention and then using the patent to stifle innovation, including the use of their own invention.
In order to maintain patent protection, patent holders should have to demonstrate that they have a concrete plan for developing or licensing their invention. Nothing fancy, but the plan should be legally binding, and royalties should only apply to the actual use of the invention (and not be based on the fact that it may end up as a two-cent part in a million-dollar device).

[IraSiegel]

Much of the time inventors do try to license their innoventions. Large companies often either ignore their entreaties (figuring that the inventor will not have the wherewithal to enforce any patents he or she has) or make pitiful licensing offers. While the patent legal system may not be perfect, it is not broken. What Intel and some posters here are proposing would stifle, not encourage, innovention.