Innovation vs Monopoly - "NO" on current patent changes

Don't let Washington Lobbyist or Corporate Goliaths destroy our U.S. patent system by changing the current patent laws that protect new ideas, innovations and inventions!

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Patent
• Reform
• mac
• vs
• pc
• apple
• ads
• corporation
• legislation
• government
• politics
• monopoly

[GranitW]

So true. Microsoft's core business isn't software, it's buying out companies and use OEMs as their own, like Internet Explorer, DOS, and even the 3D flip in Vista.

[twr570]

Patents should represent a balance between the patentee and the public. If the balance isn't right, the system doesn't work as it should. Innovators' rights should be like Goldilocks' porridge - not too weak, not too strong, but just right. If too weak, large companies may ignore them - if too strong, they may prevent others using what ought to be free to all.

[elchippe]

@rlinventor I dont saying dont patent your invention if you think is worth for it, but the patent system is not perfect, is only thing that we have, but is not perfect.

[elchippe]

@rlinventor

-And yes the us patent office award patent over obvious and patented technologies, trying to invalidate a patent in a court is costly process for a small company and more costly after a patent troll attack you.

[elchippe]

@rlinventor - if you have a patent over you product and a big company have a bigger patent portafolio over that area of technology it can use their patents to destroy you product, remember patents dont give you the rigth to use your invention if give you the rigth to exclude everyone from produce it, sometimes patents overlap each other ( innovation).

[elchippe]

@rlinventor

- I dont think the independent inventors made more technology than the big guys because they have more money for R&D than independent inventors, but i think that if he/she develop a technology in a new area of technology a patent could help.

[rlinventor]

@elchippe In the US, independent inventors have created more important new technologies than corporate entities. If you patent a new product, you can compete with the big guys. Without the patent system, whoever has the most efficient manufacturing/marketing setup wins - and that is not your or me. A patent on an "obvious" technology can be invalidated - if it really is obvious, it should not receive a patent. The current US system is better than those elsewhere at enabling the individual.

[rlinventor]

You are absolutely right. The patent system we have had in the US has given greater rights to the individual to own and protect his creation, period. The individual has always been the greatest innovation creator, and the US patent system has supported the individual in his quest - this is a big reason why the US has out-innovated the rest of the world. Multi-national companies have wanted for years to remove the threat of a guy in his garage upsetting their vested interests. Yes, vote no!