Re: Patents

From: Ross A. Finlayson (raf@tiki-lounge.com)
Date: Mon Dec 27 1999 - 18:14:07 MST


More about patents, patent law was framed with the intention of protecting the
inventors' interests and thus promoting innovation.

While the mythic lone inventor has always been the romantic ideal behind such valid
policy, he is in many ways the exception to the norm, where institutional development
concerns have largely assumed the majority of patent applications.

So, patents and patent law itself are and should be kept as a protection for the
occasional smaller inventor and impetus for progress, but reform is merited.

In my opinion, less time should be made available as the period of protection, half or
less than currently.

Also, the patent review process should be made more open to those not only designated
patent lawyers and investigators but also the much larger population with a general and
specific interest in the patent area. By encouraging open review, a much more credible
discovery of prior art may be found and other relevant data made clear.

Intellectual property is itself the most intangible of goods. Thus, it merits the most
open of treatments. Of course, in some cases, it might be a "secret recipe", remember
that security through obscurity is not security, and there is the recourse of law, for
whatever that is worth.

Questions about patents: say you or I patent a process A->B. Along comes another,
filing a claim for B->C, B not otherwise reachable except through the previously
patented process. Is the newcomer beholden to allow fair access to patent 2, and vice
versa? What obligations fall on the newcomer? When a patent refers another patent,
what is that chain of ownership, responsibility, and right to access and use?

Patents of the government are in large part allowed for free use by the people. If any
patent is based on prior art (of the government), are that patent's claims then subject
to the same interpretation? The government can ignore patents through eminent IP domain
but there would be no reason not to sue them civilly.

Ross



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:13 MST