Ask the judge that told the USPTO that mice were patentable (against the USPTO's wishes).How the hell is all this mess supposed to support progress, which was the original intention when the concept of patents was introduced⁈
Not at all, but the system does need to be reformed to prevent certain kinds of patents.Does anyone else here think that patents have outlived their usefulness a very long time ago?
I'm not convinced patents are useful at all. Really, there are enough incentives already, like being the first to market or raising funds through a variety of means (even donations or pledges). What patents do instead is create an opportunity for excess profits by stifling competition, effectively enacting a monopoly. They might also reduce incentives for innovation, if it proves some new technology builds upon patented ideas.
So I don't really get this "some patents are ok" thing. Do they become evil once they visibly step on your toes?
The problem is with all the generic patents that cover everything, and the patents that cover obvious things that many people would inevitably come up with as soon as they start working in that field. That's a job for major patent reform, not necessarily abolishing them altogether.
Aww, please let it be true!
See my signature.
You forgot sarcasm tags here. A large enterprise (global player) has by far a longer breath for a patent / law fight than a small business. Patents are always in favour of the large fishes.Originally Posted by yogi_berra
In the 18th Century, when the Founding Fathers established the United States, communications and distribution of a good were slow. The Founding Fathers felt 7 years was an adequate amount of time for an inventor/investor to recover their development costs and possibly ("POSSIBLY", mind you, not guarantee) make some profit. Fast forward to the 21st Century: communications are near instant, the time to distribute a good has decreased significantly, and patent terms have been extended. Extended. In a world where recovery of the development costs is also significantly reduced and a company CAN make a profit. Excessive profits even. Extending patent protection was not the answer, since now, instead of promoting the arts and sciences, patents now hinder said progress.
The correct solution should have been to decrease patent terms to 3 to 3.5 years: a suitable amount of time to recover costs and make a profit. Patents in the 21st Century are used as a means to lock others out of a market and stifle competitors(or at least make attempts to: see the recent Apple suits against everyone in the mobile computing device space). As it stands, when most patents expire nowadays, the technology/concept it covered has long since been abandoned by consumers, making the technology/concept worthless, except for any historical value it may hold. Think about it: what company in their right mind would now build a cellphone crammed full of tech from 1994? Consumers will say "Oh! How quaint! an antique cellphone!" and pass it on by.....
I don't feel abolishing patents completely is the answer(except software patents: software evolves too fast to be hindered by patents). Again, as I stated before: patent terms need to be reduced, not extended.
Remember the US legal system is not based on right or wrong, it is based on who has the best argument.
You read more about true HDR rendering on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDR_rendering)