I'm using the terms interchangeably here when I shouldn't be, I know.
I'm actually for pretty hefty patent protections, but I think they should be limited in term (where, thankfully, Congress agrees with me) and limited in scope (where the courts and Congress do not seem to agree with me). Copyrights, IMO, have mostly just vastly overreached the usefulness of extending the terms, though they're about right in terms of the protections that exist. Keeping the two separate is somewhat important to the overall argument.
You also at least appear to be saying that the litigation is a bad thing, and I'm not convinced of that, either. I'm not sure why the court of law is nt a good place to hash that kind of thing out.
Litigation is an artificial expense, a barrier to entry. It's only a good thing to determine who has the rights if we need to have sole possession of rights. So, I think you're begging the overall question.
Also, I meant to restrict my "should that really be patented" question to things like the icon grid (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/04/bad-touchwiz-apple-sues-samsung-for-patent-violations.ars), something that's existed in the Windows since at least Windows ME (I can't recall whether Win95 had the grid icon version), released in 2000. Touchscreens, to me, fall clearly under patentable tech, whereas the icon grid patent gets away with it because patent examiners are too overworked to actually check the prior art for either novelty or non-obviousness in any rigorous way. Part of that would be restoring lost resources (http://www.generalpatent.com/patent-office-fy2011-budget-slashed-100-million) to the USPTO, and making them an actual enforcement and examination body rather than a slow-moving rubber stamp. That's doubly true if we're going to give judicial deference (http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/BuchananJ-Deference.pdf) to PTO decisions.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2/4/12 15:52 (UTC)I'm actually for pretty hefty patent protections, but I think they should be limited in term (where, thankfully, Congress agrees with me) and limited in scope (where the courts and Congress do not seem to agree with me). Copyrights, IMO, have mostly just vastly overreached the usefulness of extending the terms, though they're about right in terms of the protections that exist. Keeping the two separate is somewhat important to the overall argument.
You also at least appear to be saying that the litigation is a bad thing, and I'm not convinced of that, either. I'm not sure why the court of law is nt a good place to hash that kind of thing out.
Litigation is an artificial expense, a barrier to entry. It's only a good thing to determine who has the rights if we need to have sole possession of rights. So, I think you're begging the overall question.
Also, I meant to restrict my "should that really be patented" question to things like the icon grid (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/04/bad-touchwiz-apple-sues-samsung-for-patent-violations.ars), something that's existed in the Windows since at least Windows ME (I can't recall whether Win95 had the grid icon version), released in 2000. Touchscreens, to me, fall clearly under patentable tech, whereas the icon grid patent gets away with it because patent examiners are too overworked to actually check the prior art for either novelty or non-obviousness in any rigorous way. Part of that would be restoring lost resources (http://www.generalpatent.com/patent-office-fy2011-budget-slashed-100-million) to the USPTO, and making them an actual enforcement and examination body rather than a slow-moving rubber stamp. That's doubly true if we're going to give judicial deference (http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/BuchananJ-Deference.pdf) to PTO decisions.