I don't agree with Richard. I don't see the case for treating "software" and "hardware" differently.
Patents were invented as a way to protect intellectual property and to derive revenue from it. They are an incentive for innovation. They're just being abused mostly by patent trolls.
Patent trolls acquire a large number of bogus patents, sue companies and in most cases settle confidentially. Most companies don't like risk especially when their core business process is threatened. So they settle even if there's a good chance the patent could be challenged. It's not a fair fight...
To limit this abuse we could make patents non transferable meaning you can sell the right to use the invention but you cannot sell the invention. Some will argue that patent trolls could work on behalf of inventors to help them enforce their patents but I think most inventors are more reasonable than the lawyers specializing in patent trolling. There might also be a way to mitigate this risk with some regulation, ideas?
Amazon would still be the only site offering 1-click checkout and Apple would still have the only phone with Slide-to-Unlock. These are just as important as patent trolls.
What do you mean by as important as patent trolls?
Amazon patented this process and is using it for the benefit of their customers, what's wrong with that? Another company could offer 1-click checkout if they
- pay royalties.
- or own another patent amazon is infringing as a mean to disuade amazon from suing.
Maybe the problem here is that these patents you are referring to seem overly simple and shouldn't be somebody's IP but what seems trivial and intuitive today could have been very innovative at the time they were patented.
> Amazon patented this process and is using it for the benefit of their customers, what's wrong with that?
What's wrong with it is that no competitors can use the same idea without paying Amazon (assuming Amazon would even agree to license it).
What is the benefit to society of preventing someone other than Amazon from implementing 1-click checkout? Do you really think that "innovation" would never have been created without the protection of patents?
I agree that innovation should be more openly shared and licensing should be somehow regulated but I do think there will be less innovation in a world without patents especially in a capitalist world. A lot of the innovation is fueled by research financed by the private sector. Remove the incentive to invest and you reduce the financing and as a result innovation.
Patent trolls acquire a large number of bogus patents, sue companies and in most cases settle confidentially. Most companies don't like risk especially when their core business process is threatened. So they settle even if there's a good chance the patent could be challenged. It's not a fair fight...
To limit this abuse we could make patents non transferable meaning you can sell the right to use the invention but you cannot sell the invention. Some will argue that patent trolls could work on behalf of inventors to help them enforce their patents but I think most inventors are more reasonable than the lawyers specializing in patent trolling. There might also be a way to mitigate this risk with some regulation, ideas?