- Status
Posner on Torts was even more radical, applying contract theory and Rousseau-derived social contract philosophy to product liability cases. Almost went to U. of Chicago Law just for him but, alas, the wife objected to living in Chicago. This man has been a legal genius for longer than I can remember.
greenrider02
Distinguished
- Dec 18, 2010
- 34
- 0
- 18,580
That paragraph listing all our problems was both depressing and refreshing to hear from someone in public office.
Parrdacc
Distinguished
- Jun 30, 2008
- 391
- 0
- 18,930
Normally I do not cheer for many in the field of law, regardless of what the job is, for obvious reasons like stupid lawsuits, over reaching police and the list goes on, but:
WAY TO GO Mr. Richard Posner! Thank you for showing that there still is someone who is willing to state how things really are.
WAY TO GO Mr. Richard Posner! Thank you for showing that there still is someone who is willing to state how things really are.
happyballz
Distinguished
- Mar 15, 2011
- 144
- 0
- 18,630
How come there was no "news" on Apple trying to sue Samsung over galaxy S III, and trying to block it's shipment in US before the release in June. (Judge actually delayed hearing until after June so they effectively lost thank god).
How come we keep hearing about these so called other "patent trolls" suing Apple but when the main troll of them all attacks other companies there is no news about it? This site is really turning slowly into Apple outlet with selective news like that.
How come we keep hearing about these so called other "patent trolls" suing Apple but when the main troll of them all attacks other companies there is no news about it? This site is really turning slowly into Apple outlet with selective news like that.
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]FINALLY!!!!How is it a judge can point out EVERY problem in a single statement, yet the idiots we elect to office and allow to run this country can't even seem to figure out that they are ALL directly responsible for the condition this country is in? We need some people like this judge running the government.Step One to fixing the patent system. Void ALL "proof of concept" patents and require companies to actually develop the technology they're trying to patent....then prove it actually works exactly as described. Step Two: If the patent is awarded, require the company to license the patent for reasonable terms and void the patent if they refuse. No more selling patents. If you didn't develop it, you don't get a patent for it. If the patent is sold, it's immediately VOID.Step Three: Remediation. If the patent holder and potential licensee (in cases of patent infringement) can't come to reasonable terms for licensing....either void the patent (if patent holder is at fault) or ban the sale of infringing products (if potential licensee is at fault).That would fix most of the issues with the patent system and stop all these BS patent suits.If you didn't develop the tech or a product that uses it....there are no damages from someone else infringing the patent and judges should be throwing out suits from these companies that buy patents. They don't develop anything thus there's no damages involved.[/citation]
no. allow proof of concept pattents for companies if they have a working model or can show its use in real world applications, allow complete proof of concept just on paper for individuals who apply for pattents on things that they invent or ideas they have.
patents were originally to protect the small inventor from corporations, and corporations from people stealing world changing ideas, they are now used as legal ammo, and frivolous as swipe to unlock.
on point 2, HELL NO. you can chose to licencee out a patent, but if it gives you an edge to beet the competition, than why the hell should you forgo your buissness, and its success, just because the competition cant compete? lets say mac could use a mouse, and had all the patents, and windows was all keyboard, and cant have a mouse. apple could choose to sell the rights, or use it as a pc cant do this bullet point.
part 3 is also a hell no but only half. say i invented glasses, and the world needs it, reasonable to you would be 50 cents a pair, while reasonable to me is 50$ a pair. reality of the situation is i own the patent, i make the price, you don't like it, well go without. and if someone decides to make counterfeit glasses, ban them and put criminal charges on them.
no. allow proof of concept pattents for companies if they have a working model or can show its use in real world applications, allow complete proof of concept just on paper for individuals who apply for pattents on things that they invent or ideas they have.
patents were originally to protect the small inventor from corporations, and corporations from people stealing world changing ideas, they are now used as legal ammo, and frivolous as swipe to unlock.
on point 2, HELL NO. you can chose to licencee out a patent, but if it gives you an edge to beet the competition, than why the hell should you forgo your buissness, and its success, just because the competition cant compete? lets say mac could use a mouse, and had all the patents, and windows was all keyboard, and cant have a mouse. apple could choose to sell the rights, or use it as a pc cant do this bullet point.
part 3 is also a hell no but only half. say i invented glasses, and the world needs it, reasonable to you would be 50 cents a pair, while reasonable to me is 50$ a pair. reality of the situation is i own the patent, i make the price, you don't like it, well go without. and if someone decides to make counterfeit glasses, ban them and put criminal charges on them.
- Sep 6, 2008
- 3,485
- 0
- 20,730
- Apr 15, 2012
- 41
- 0
- 10,590
upgrade_1977
Distinguished
- May 5, 2011
- 185
- 0
- 18,630
Patent claims are stupid when it comes to software. It should cover copyright and coding not the idea behind coding. For example, slide to unlock is an action, that should not be patentable, but the coding to make it happen, or the particular design of the slide to unlock should be able to be patented. But if you have to slide to unlock buttons, that work the same, but look different, and the coding is different, then it should be ok. That way, if you copy someone else's code, then you can be sued, but if you do your own foot work, then you are safe. You shouldn't be able to patent an idea that is common sense in my opinion. To many sue happy corporations. Obviously everything is going touch screens, so they shouldn't allow companies free will on patenting anything that only takes two brain cell's to come up with.
[citation][nom]coldmast[/nom]You can't patent an idea. If you could, science fiction writers would own everything.[/citation]
draw a detailed schematic of steam powered train, and when i say detailed, i mean down to the last bolt you would need to build it.
you than submit the whole thing to the patent office, and receive a patent on it. its still an idea, but you as an individual have no way of making it, you just designed it.
if a science fiction writer wrote the most detailed version they can, and all their concepts pan out into real products the way that it was mentioned in the writing, they deserve a patent to. but just writing a see through screen you can hold in your hands and it acts like a computer is not detailed enough.
draw a detailed schematic of steam powered train, and when i say detailed, i mean down to the last bolt you would need to build it.
you than submit the whole thing to the patent office, and receive a patent on it. its still an idea, but you as an individual have no way of making it, you just designed it.
if a science fiction writer wrote the most detailed version they can, and all their concepts pan out into real products the way that it was mentioned in the writing, they deserve a patent to. but just writing a see through screen you can hold in your hands and it acts like a computer is not detailed enough.
hawkwindeb
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2006
- 33
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]FINALLY!!!!How is it a judge can point out EVERY problem in a single statement, yet the idiots we elect to office and allow to run this country can't even seem to figure out that they are ALL directly responsible for the condition this country is in? We need some people like this judge running the government.Step One to fixing the patent system. Void ALL "proof of concept" patents and require companies to actually develop the technology they're trying to patent....then prove it actually works exactly as described. Step Two: If the patent is awarded, require the company to license the patent for reasonable terms and void the patent if they refuse. No more selling patents. If you didn't develop it, you don't get a patent for it. If the patent is sold, it's immediately VOID.Step Three: Remediation. If the patent holder and potential licensee (in cases of patent infringement) can't come to reasonable terms for licensing....either void the patent (if patent holder is at fault) or ban the sale of infringing products (if potential licensee is at fault).That would fix most of the issues with the patent system and stop all these BS patent suits.If you didn't develop the tech or a product that uses it....there are no damages from someone else infringing the patent and judges should be throwing out suits from these companies that buy patents. They don't develop anything thus there's no damages involved.[/citation]
Hold on a minute... If I read you right, that means smart folks even geniuses that could think up a ground breaking device to change all I lives for the better ALSO has to be rich enough to build and implement their design or they just wasted their time? If they sold it it voids the patent? How far would you take this "selling" in the case that the originator needs money to even build a prototype, let alone an incredible amount more money to implement it through to production, etc. That could be interpreted as one can't get any money from investors to create a business entity since that's "selling" a portion of it or even all of it to get the thing implemented, productized and selling the product so the entity makes money!
So if I read you right and take it to one obvious conclusion such as I have described, you're not for free enterprise or free markets or for protecting the folks that actually make stuff and you are for a socialist type of state where every invention (I'm talking about real inventions here - truly patentable as in what the patent system was originally set up to protect and not the true trolls), etc is free for the masses?? So, how does an inventor feed their family, why would "most" non-rich inventors want to spend the "financially lean" years inventing with no possibility of future monetary benefit even to have enough just to work on the next invention??? Of course there are artists out there that don't care if their invention makes any money cause they enjoy inventing - like the great painter that's not recognized as great until they are long dead, etc. but these are far between. The real person must make a living and their contribution is their genius that's worthy of being paid.
Notice I did not talk about big business, but it still applies to the extent of what the patent system was originally set up to protect.
Hold on a minute... If I read you right, that means smart folks even geniuses that could think up a ground breaking device to change all I lives for the better ALSO has to be rich enough to build and implement their design or they just wasted their time? If they sold it it voids the patent? How far would you take this "selling" in the case that the originator needs money to even build a prototype, let alone an incredible amount more money to implement it through to production, etc. That could be interpreted as one can't get any money from investors to create a business entity since that's "selling" a portion of it or even all of it to get the thing implemented, productized and selling the product so the entity makes money!
So if I read you right and take it to one obvious conclusion such as I have described, you're not for free enterprise or free markets or for protecting the folks that actually make stuff and you are for a socialist type of state where every invention (I'm talking about real inventions here - truly patentable as in what the patent system was originally set up to protect and not the true trolls), etc is free for the masses?? So, how does an inventor feed their family, why would "most" non-rich inventors want to spend the "financially lean" years inventing with no possibility of future monetary benefit even to have enough just to work on the next invention??? Of course there are artists out there that don't care if their invention makes any money cause they enjoy inventing - like the great painter that's not recognized as great until they are long dead, etc. but these are far between. The real person must make a living and their contribution is their genius that's worthy of being paid.
Notice I did not talk about big business, but it still applies to the extent of what the patent system was originally set up to protect.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Why are windows laptop cameras so bad compared to other's?
- Started by bakriwa5
- Replies: 2
-
Discussion What new phone technology trends should we keep an eye on?- Started by Vandna Jadhav
- Replies: 2
-
Question Best laptops for a student going to high school
- Started by joninte2
- Replies: 2
-
Question What if the EU forced laptop makers to allow upgradeable ram and storage?
- Started by kionbo2
- Replies: 2
-
-
Question Which games are you playing right now please suggest me some- Started by happyclub
- Replies: 8
Facebook
Twitter