James:
This is called whitespace patenting and while competitively useful, it
does appear to be at odds with some the basic tenets of patent law. The
only way to curtail this practice is for the patent office to demand
models (or other demonstratives) that show actual reduction to practice.
I think a solution of this type goes far too far.
One possibility (albeit problematic in its own right), would be to
divide patents into "speculative" and "actual" categories, with those
patents having been actually reduced to practice at the time of filing
being usable to obtain the full range of damages we normally associate
with patent infringement cases and the speculative patents subject to
some sort of mechanical licensing. This designation would be made by the
applicant at the time of filing.
Disputes would always arise, but we already have rules in place to
determine when an invention was reduced to practice.
Regards,
Chris McLaughlin
Rudolph Technologies, Inc.
"That is a somewhat troubling concept because, when you are dealing with
multi-million dollar inventions, it could make sense to just make up
things
that you think will work, realizing that some will eventually be proven
correct, and some will not be. But, if you file for 10 patents at a
total
cost of say, $200,000, and only one turns out to be defensible, but it
is
worth $10 million... You can see what would happen to the system."
Sincerely,
James Ryley, Ph.D.
www.SumoBrain.com / www.FreePatentsOnline.com
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PIUG List owner: Patent Information Users' Group Inc. (R), http://
www.piug.org
PIUG List rules and guidelines: http://www.piug.org/list.php
PIUG List admin: piug_discussion_list-owner(at)v2(dot)listbox(dot)com
PIUG Discussion List @ Listbox
3&id_secret=94805973-1f86e6
_secret=95645000-d2a925
Received on Wed Feb 13 2008 - 17:36:21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jan 06 2009 - 07:03:13