Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

Sure, in theory, but the distinction between allowing someone to "fairly profit" and granting a license to gouge is more than a little subjective. Again, people were innovating long before the advent of intellectual property as a concept--they entered the market and took their chances while others were free to improve upon the design. If you absolutely insist on injecting government into the process, why not simply legislate a "reasonable" (i.e., low) maximum licensing duty and allow all willing to pay the license to the inventor to produce the product? This would still be artificial and anticompetetive, but it would also still grant some exclusive profit to inventors and, I think, decrease overal cost and time to market for most products and services.

Reply to
MKloepster
Loading thread data ...

There isn't any. So what? Isn't the greater good better served by having innovations quickly brought to market by those who can do so at a competetive rate? Remember, people innovated long before the USPTO and its foreign equivalents came into existence.

Reply to
MKloepster

Well said and should be foremost in mind when criticizing patents. Found out the Tiff program only works with the browser you got it from. Now I can see the drawings and went through half of them. Still seems weak from what is implied of prior art and more like a design patent. If its seems serious I would get hard copies of the patent and all he cited and read them. The claim is not very clear to me without knowing the art and reading all else necessary. IIRC he goes back to the late 40's with examples of prior art. The guy worried about it probably does the same type of thing , but not exactly the same way and shouldn't be worried about it , but ya got to check it out if your getting letters.

His patent is bogus or don't do it that way. Send the prior art to the holder and the PTO. Hell, you almost have to be an attorney to cross the street now days. They just might cancel that puppy.

I see that applications are available now which means they did change a lot of laws for the new world order so showing prior art wouldn't be good for the patent holder. *maybe*

Reply to
Sunworshipper

Gov't can't decide what "fair" profit is. The market decides that. It's not gouging, because anyone is free to not use it just as before the invention. The gouge is if others compete with me by using (stealing) an idea that I invested the time and money to develop. I need to recoup my investment or repay loans, so I'd be at a competitive disadvantage with my own idea.

They still are, after I've had a fair chance to recoup my investment. Meanwhile, they're always free to invent something better than I did.

I don't insist in injecting government at all, as in proposing legislation of what someone other than the market deems "reasonable". If you don't want to pay what I ask to license my idea, you are free to not use it and pay me nothing. You should not be free to steal the fruits of my labor by abusing the legal system. You can have it free when the patent runs out.

I wonder how much of the software you're using is pirated (stolen) rather than legal licensed copies.....

Let's not confuse the public good with the public greed. Inventors are part of the public too. If you remove temporary proprietary advantage then things won't get better because there's no point in investing to make things better, only to make the same things cheaper.

Reply to
Don Foreman

And so... now we know how the USPTO came about

Reply to
mark

The first year after the issue date of any USA patent anyone who can prove that the patent was issued improperly can file an objection to that patent. If you have proof that this process was used before the "application date" of the issued patent you can have that patent invalidated. Sending a copy of this proof to the attorney of the patent holder and the USPTO office will probably put a stop to any legal issues the small shop owner doing that work has. Make sure to file the objections before the 1 year filing date has passed. DL

Reply to
Gunluvver2

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:29:48 GMT, "mark" vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I think I agree with what that last comment intended .

***************************************************** It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it rammed down our throats.
Reply to
Old Nick

On 02 Aug 2004 16:50:21 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.compost.bin (MKloepster) vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

hmmmm....no problems with a US invention / development being ripped off by China? Not because there was some agreement, but "because they can". Read a few other messages around here from guys losing jobs, if you are looking only at consumerism.

Where is the greater good if somebody invents something, gets taken for a ride, and had 20 other ideas, but falls in a heap? Or what if they see somebody else get taken, and never start to publicise _any_ ideas they may have?

You have addressed and belligerently dealt with only one aspect of what I was trying to say.

I admitted the patent system is flawed.

I do not agree that it _encourages_ patentors to gouge the buyer. It _forces_ them to!

But the _idea_ has merit.

And I still challenge you on the ownership of ideas. IF you have had one, and successfully marketed it, and are happy with the results, _without_ using the Patent system, then I move back and let you take the stand.

Having said that, I again say the idea is not flawed; the system is. I have had ideas, as have many others here. I have (a) backed away from the sheer cost and complication of the patent system (b) been convinced that it will not protect me anyway.

You want greater good, then we need a public patent system, accessible without $15000 legal and lost time costs.

***************************************************** It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it rammed down our throats.
Reply to
Old Nick

On 02 Aug 2004 16:48:43 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.compost.bin (MKloepster) vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Any protection system will allow somebody to profit unfairly, if people are willing to pay. But free-for-all markets will hurt somebody who has spent time developing.

But a lot of that went on before there was such availability of mass-production, and before we had such rapid transmission of information. The Patent idea came into being because it became needed. I would imagine there are court cases and battles that brought it to life.

I agree with you that there are markets out there that are gouging under protection, and maybe there _is_ a need for price regulation. Don, you say that the matket should decide and people simply do not buy. What about medicines? They are probably the most fearful, the most innovative and the most gouged area. People do not feel that they have a choice.

How can an agreed license fee be anticompetitive? It is, as you say, a good working idea for a system, guaranteeing income for the developer, and encouraging them to move on to other things while tyhe market sorts out who makes the previous products.

There is one small niggle. Don't you need some system to prove that you _deserve_ that license fee?

***************************************************** It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it rammed down our throats.
Reply to
Old Nick

Nick,

One thing that I'd like to point out is that in the USA, patents are a constitutional right. I don't know what the situation is down under. As constitutionally established, there's probably far less wiggle room for the courts to muck with patents.

Reply to
Jim Stewart

I'm having trouble understanding your point of view. What ever the laws maybe or the reality of their implication it doesn't seem right to leave it wide open. Like a copy write on a book , if someone can copy it cheaper the week after it came out it's ok? Or trademarks , with fake McD arches on burger stands?

Your trolling right? Reminds me of Atlas shrugged (?) by Ann Rann

Reply to
Sunworshipper

That sort of smaks of the worst kind of socialism. The "greatest good for the greatest number" and to hell with the individual. :-( ...lew...

Reply to
Lewis Hartswick

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:02:38 GMT, Lewis Hartswick vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

But could esaily result in the worst kind of capitalism, and in fact outright war.....

***************************************************** It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it rammed down our throats.
Reply to
Old Nick

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 19:17:11 -0700, Jim Stewart vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

But who pays? Are you saying that somebody with no money can still get a patent? Serious question. Also. Do they have the right to free / state representation should they need to litigate regarding that patent?

I'm not aware of the constitutional situation regarding patents in Oz. But I see Americans just as afraid of being ripped off as many other places.

***************************************************** It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it rammed down our throats.
Reply to
Old Nick

No, just that patents are provided for in the constitution. The constitution also provides for post offices but that doesn't mean that the mail is free.

Serious question. Also. Do they have the right to free /

I'm not a lawyer, not even an internet lawyer. I don't know.

No argument there.

Reply to
Jim Stewart

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 16:08:03 -0700, Jim Stewart vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

No. But as far as I know the cost of mail is affordable to the average Joe, and is regulated. It's also possible to send a package without a lawyer to show you how!

***************************************************** It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it rammed down our throats.
Reply to
Old Nick

I've got an idea. What if a patent attorney were willing to enter into an agreement with the inventor on a contingency basis. They could agree to process the patent, and defend it against future litigation in exchange for a percentage of the profits.

Reply to
Leo Lichtman

I was involved with a hi-tech startup years ago where our patent attorney took some stock (and cash) in exchange for patent processing services.

Reply to
Jim Stewart

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.