tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8795394263737978490..comments2024-03-28T09:05:22.006+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Mark Cuban's Patent Jeremiad Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62467320029707306402013-02-05T20:36:43.954+00:002013-02-05T20:36:43.954+00:00Hardly anything novel or inventive in that enumera...Hardly anything novel or inventive in that enumeration. Sigh.<br /><br />Point 4 was already a contentious issue when the Paris Union was negotiated 130 years ago. See <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/trtdocs_wo020.html#P123_15283" rel="nofollow">art. 5A</a>. Complying with the "working" requirement of foreign law could be as difficult as with prior first filing obligations.<br /><br />A gradation is foreseen: a compulsory license must first be provided before expropriation can be envisaged. Such compulsory licenses are coded in some national laws.<br />Roufousse T. Fairflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20131939318125316642013-02-05T16:29:06.365+00:002013-02-05T16:29:06.365+00:00Some odd views here and there in the list overall,...Some odd views here and there in the list overall, but I think that there's something to be said for the underlying sentiments of #4, albeit with some tinkering as suggested previously and above.<br /><br />Compulsory licenses hardly ever rear their head, and it does seem as though many companies file many patent applications purely as a blocking technique and/or as a stockpile in an arms race. Gut feeling is, and always has been, that this is just not right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51664669078797562082013-02-05T08:56:02.396+00:002013-02-05T08:56:02.396+00:00#5 is indeed ridiculous and shows a complete misun...#5 is indeed ridiculous and shows a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of the patent system. How would anyone "show you invented the idea using completely independent thought"? At best this would be unworkable, at worst it would encourage what I'd call a "nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you" defence of wilful ignorance, hampering the free flow of ideas even more than the current effect of triple damages for wilful infringement in the US.<br />Do you want get rid of trolls? Introduce "loser pays". Period.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-59678096549934436522013-02-04T22:39:29.572+00:002013-02-04T22:39:29.572+00:004 is ridiculous. This would leave basic research ...4 is ridiculous. This would leave basic research essentially unprotected. <br /><br />5 is ridiculous and shows a misunderstanding about what a patent is. <br /><br />6 supposes that if more than one person invents something, it is not an invention. This is silly. So if 2 people came up with CDMA, then CDMA is not an invention? Garbage. Multiple people coming up with an idea is baked into the legal test for obviousness. People should learn about the law that they are trying to change. <br /><br />Something needs to be done about patent litigation, but his view is so skewed that <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-36472920985864002302013-02-04T16:16:45.069+00:002013-02-04T16:16:45.069+00:00I don't think IPKat needs to be too alarmed at...I don't think IPKat needs to be too alarmed at Mr Cuban being given space on the 'highly influential' TechCrunch website. I think a lot of TechCrunch readers already have a 'bring down the government' view which is prevalent amongst tech-savvy youngsters in the US. Mr Cuban's views are moderate in comparison to those of many who will have read the article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72496700206995268512013-02-04T14:15:33.153+00:002013-02-04T14:15:33.153+00:00The only thing wrong with [5] that I can see, is t...The only thing wrong with [5] that I can see, is to quote Shakespeare (ironically?) quoting some Greek bloke "nothing comes of nothing".<br /><br />Everyone working in the same field of endeavour is stimulated by broadly the same ideas, e.g., Einstein was merely first, others such as Brown (as in Brownian motion) were sniffing around.<br /><br />But that's the beauty of [6] thinking e.g., lotka-volterra as one example of many in field of mathematics. Gentoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05063939954837162413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23581521808598652082013-02-04T11:51:11.933+00:002013-02-04T11:51:11.933+00:00... saving enterpreneous the requirement to hire c...... saving enterpreneous the requirement to hire cover-your-ass lawyers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72456512692972294312013-02-04T11:45:15.129+00:002013-02-04T11:45:15.129+00:00Contrary to SG's comment, I believe Conran'...Contrary to SG's comment, I believe Conran's proposal to stop granting dumbass patents is the most sensible of his ideas. However Cuban hasn't hit on the solution, which is for the US PTO to employ more smartass patent examiners, who can then do a kickass job of refusing the very many raggedy-ass patent applications that cross their desks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-66717911807844198942013-02-04T10:38:32.481+00:002013-02-04T10:38:32.481+00:00No satisfactory solution has been found to patent ...No satisfactory solution has been found to patent trolls, and this does not need to be sorted out (item 4). I also believe existing rights are an unfair burden to new companies (items 1 to 3). Solutions do exist in the form of compulsory licencing or expanding research exemptions, which I would favour rather than raising the threshold for getting a patent. Undoubtedly larger companies are better placed to take advantage of the patent system to defend their rights (item 7), and this should be recognised as a real problem which needs sorting out. Unfortunately the political will is not there to try to change the status quo given how many influential larger players don't want substantial changes, which is the real problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10298679705100614572013-02-04T10:06:46.975+00:002013-02-04T10:06:46.975+00:00Seems like Cuban is advocating the importation of ...Seems like Cuban is advocating the importation of other areas of IP law into the field of patents. The five-year non-use grounds for revocation is a tenet of trademark law and the proposed "cold room" exception is analogous to independent creation, a tenet of copyright law. While there may be issues with the practicality of introducing these into patent law, it doesn't appear to be anything too radical. It's a shame that he had to drop these two proposals into a hyperbolic article about "dumbass" patent and the scrapping of designs, but then again I suppose the intention is to grab ones attention.SGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533346450129049222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-39931466600393858312013-02-04T09:56:58.199+00:002013-02-04T09:56:58.199+00:00Some of the suugestions seem, at least at first si...Some of the suugestions seem, at least at first sight, way off the mark. Item 4, on the other hand, looks interesting. Something like it would stop trolls dead in their tracks. There would of course have to be some flexibility to allow for inventions where the technology is so difficult that it takes longer to put into commercial use. The exception should available only on tangible evidence that real effort has been made to put the invention into practice - something that probably no troll would be able to show! And the idea is no as far fetched as one might think - look at trademarks that haven't been used ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com