Maybe we just need to change the patent system itself.
I believe people game the patent system by trying to be as general as possible when creating patents.
I believe this stifles progress, I believe stifling progress is wrong, I believe stifling progress hurts us as a country in a time when we can not afford it.
What if a patent's definition changed over it's life time based upon what the company is actually using it for?
I think this would solve a couple problems.
1) It would force the company to actively invest in "idea's" that they own if they are actually makers and not scammers. (Yeah!!, progress continues)
2) It would open up the patent system to redefining the shelf life of patents.
We could call this new system "Shit or get off the pot!" patents.
I believe people game the patent system by trying to be as general as possible when creating patents.
I believe this stifles progress, I believe stifling progress is wrong, I believe stifling progress hurts us as a country in a time when we can not afford it.
What if a patent's definition changed over it's life time based upon what the company is actually using it for?
I think this would solve a couple problems.
1) It would force the company to actively invest in "idea's" that they own if they are actually makers and not scammers. (Yeah!!, progress continues)
2) It would open up the patent system to redefining the shelf life of patents.
We could call this new system "Shit or get off the pot!" patents.