> > Example: In 1800 what percentage of patent holders were alive to see it
> > expire and what is that percentage today?
>
> I guess I just dont agree with long-term patents (i.e. over two or three
> years)...
>
> I've always been of the school of thought: 'You do something right, you
> enjoy it a bit.. Then you do something differnt and hopefully better.'..
> I've always though it was best to avoide stagnation, you never know when
> someone will make you obsolete.. :)
Another side of the coin is that in today's world, many patents are held
by immortal beings called corporations. Where you were protecting an
individual craftsman's right to make an honest living from the fruits of
ingenuity, now the patent is a protection of future profits through market
exclusion and licensing. I think that maybe there should be a distinction
between a patent owned by an individual and a patent owned by a
corporation. A corporate patent should not be renewable while an
individual patent may be transferrable to an heir but renewable only by
the original holder.
In other words, as long as the original inventor is alive, the patent
should be allowed to stand and the remainder of the term should transfer
to an heir as an asset but a corporate patent should be for a single term
only and then it is fair game for the rest of the industry.
How is that for compromise?
George Bonser
If I had a catchy quip, it would be here.
http://www.debian.org
Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu