On TV.com: 5 TV Shows We'd Love on the BIG SCREEN
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 22 of 29:
Next »
« Previous
Moderately True?.
While its true, part of the process is to have inventors reveal the "new devices, compounds and processes", as it turns out this is typically not going to be the primary purpose for providing the limited monopoly patent law provides. Consider the fact that if patent law did not exist, the vast majority of ?inventions? could be backwards engineered to discover the relevant qualities of the invention and then could be reproduced at will by anyone who had the skills to do so.

As it turns out while there is a strong focus on the notion of revealing of the process or composition, device etc., patent law does little in the long run that could not be accomplished without patent law. The revelation of the qualities of the invention in exchange for the limited monopoly that patent law provides is often touted as the required consideration the inventor gives for the monopoly, as such consideration is required to make any contract valid, and the patenting process is often considered to be a contract between the inventor and society.

On the other hand, there is a reasonable argument to be made that without patent law and the resulting limited monopoly it provides, that many inventions are so expensive and time consuming to develop that without the monopoly to ensure recovery of expenses and some profitability of the product there would be insufficient motivation to make the effort to develop such inventions.

And you are right about the idea of patent law was never intended to get one person rich by leaching of the risks taken by others. Hope this clarified the situation a little.
Posted by: Cayble   Posted on: 02/23/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Yikes  specialk_z | 02/22/06
Step 6...  BitTwiddler | 02/22/06
Step 7 and 8  Narg | 02/22/06
Unfortunately  Gregory.J.Bradley@... | 02/22/06
Not nearly finished.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/22/06
Due process is a right.  John Le'Brecage | 02/23/06
Patent Farms. Bah, humbug...  BitTwiddler | 02/22/06
sue happy  kjgslg@... | 02/22/06
Hear Hear  Scoid_z | 02/22/06
Great idea  Gregory.J.Bradley@... | 02/22/06
So invest YOUR money and doit your way.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/22/06
Here No_Axe goes again, folks.  John Le'Brecage | 02/23/06
Oh come on  James T. Kirk | 02/23/06
Farms Okay if some kind of effort is shown  daver_z | 02/23/06
Patents require publication  BorisKarloff | 02/23/06
Patents finally rejected  stevem_001 | 02/22/06
The Answer?  Gregory.J.Bradley@... | 02/22/06
The Issue Exposed  Cayble | 02/22/06
I like your closing. It makes sense. It will be ignored by the USPTO. (NT)  Update victim | 02/22/06
Perfect  nomorems | 02/22/06
Not quite the basis  John Le'Brecage | 02/23/06
Moderately True?.  Cayble | 02/23/06
The original mistake...  NobodyHome | 02/23/06
So then we have a double highway forming  jaszman | 02/23/06
BINGO  Cayble | 02/23/06
Product equals Patent???  morinville@... | 02/23/06
Did Al Gore patent the internet?  danocanada | 02/23/06
Nope, that was his mistake.  UncleBubba | 02/23/06
Article could have been clearer  richwig | 02/23/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here