If an argument for patents is that they protect the R&D investment then it not being a matter of effort is quite significant.
In other words, if the patents are not being used to protect the R&D investment [effort], because it is small compared to the rest of the effort, then that argument doesn’t hold.[/quote:2bdc57267f]But that was your argument! Or have I missed something along the way? :?
Perhaps patent holders should be forced to license their patents for some arbitrated amount? This might achieve the textbook goals you stated above, while also preventing monopolies?[/quote:2bdc57267f]
This can be done in pretty much every industrialised country if the patentee is unduly affecting the market by not licensing (i.e. if he’s not meeting market demand by unduly maintaining a stranglehold on monopolised supply). Ample legal provisions (within Patent law) for this. In Ireland, the UK, France, Germany, the US, Europe…
Just like the opportunity (amply used by businesses) to oppose a recently-granted European patent (and maybe having it go poof! altogether) – it’s not something which the anti-SW patent shouts much about (refer my earlier ramblings about making use of established and working legal procedures, instead of just “propaganding”)
I can’t agree with this general statement. Sometimes it would make more sense to get a long term monopology in the new market, using your IP, rather than licensing and possibly get beaten on implementation.[/quote:2bdc57267f]
And sometimes not…side/flipside…black/white…etc.
Remember: shades of grey. There is one system for all fields of arts and business situations. It has to be flexible enough to cater for all – no matter when it serves and when it dis-serves (and don’t forget the ever-changing nature of business: what was useful yesterady for a deal may be another deal breaker tomorrow).
Yeah, but isn’t the current state of affairs, where everything is kept secret in case it infringes someone elses patent, (I believe this is one reason for keeping source closed, when it might otherwise benefit everyone to open it?) also quite bad?[/quote:2bdc57267f]
Doesn’t make any difference. My experience of litigation is that if the effect is the same (what the software makes the hardware do), you can keep it all closed that you want – the Judge is still gonna nail your @ss to the barn door.
Hopefully I have, like the others on the thread earlier, provided some points that you can see some merit in, and maybe help understand why there are concerns over whether software patents are a good thing for the industry as a whole.[/quote:2bdc57267f]
I have enjoyed this much. It doesn’t detract from the fact that my OP (from which we have veered somewhat drastically) is in relation to the unfairness to businesses (not so much me – I can still work on improved mousetraps or manure-spreaders anyway!) who have invested int he proces for whatever reason, and are now being held hostage entirely arbitrarily.
I have also noted your points with interest, and hope that I’ve provided not-too-biased replies throughout (patents are my game, yes, but my points have been grounded in business reality, not coding reality or a hypothetical socialism for all things ‘code’) :wink: