Comments on: Patent Reform: Boring but Important http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/ Ideation on economics, media, venture capital and startups Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:31:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: New York Times Article Sets the Stage for Upcoming Patent Reform Debate Renewal | loudseek.info http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/comment-page-1/#comment-23504 New York Times Article Sets the Stage for Upcoming Patent Reform Debate Renewal | loudseek.info Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:20:03 +0000 http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/#comment-23504 [...] story:Immodest Proposals has a blog titled “This Congress Might Get Something Right?!?”Leveraging Ideas has a story titled “Patent Reform: Boring But Important”ZDNet has a Government Blog [...] [...] story:Immodest Proposals has a blog titled “This Congress Might Get Something Right?!?”Leveraging Ideas has a story titled “Patent Reform: Boring But Important”ZDNet has a Government Blog [...]

]]> By: Sam Huleatt http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/comment-page-1/#comment-87853 Sam Huleatt Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:03:15 +0000 http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/#comment-87853 @Wayne. True one definition for what is and is not patentable is impossible, but as I said before, it's really the principle... that the little guy does need some protection. Otherwise, you would have VC's vet startups and then steal ideas with no fear of legal repercussion. @Wayne. True one definition for what is and is not patentable is impossible, but as I said before, it's really the principle… that the little guy does need some protection. Otherwise, you would have VC's vet startups and then steal ideas with no fear of legal repercussion.

]]> By: Wayne http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/comment-page-1/#comment-87833 Wayne Tue, 15 Jan 2008 07:02:18 +0000 http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/#comment-87833 I disagree about software patents being eliminated. I think that all patents should be eliminated. KSR vs Teleflex is a great argument for my stand.<br><br>No I know that a lot of people will say the problem is patent quality, not patents, but coming up with a reasonable definition for what defines a quality patent is impossible. At least that's my view. I disagree about software patents being eliminated. I think that all patents should be eliminated. KSR vs Teleflex is a great argument for my stand.

No I know that a lot of people will say the problem is patent quality, not patents, but coming up with a reasonable definition for what defines a quality patent is impossible. At least that's my view.

]]> By: Sam Huleatt http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/comment-page-1/#comment-87758 Sam Huleatt Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:42:02 +0000 http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/#comment-87758 @Morales Thanks for the your solid insights. <br><br>No legislation is going to be perfect, but reform is definitely needed...maybe a small component is not the make or break at point of purchase but it's also the principle of protection. Failure to protect even the little guy results potentially in stifled innovation @Morales Thanks for the your solid insights.

No legislation is going to be perfect, but reform is definitely needed…maybe a small component is not the make or break at point of purchase but it's also the principle of protection. Failure to protect even the little guy results potentially in stifled innovation

]]> By: Morales http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/comment-page-1/#comment-87610 Morales Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:38:27 +0000 http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/#comment-87610 I am not convinced at all the Patent Reform Act will bring a plus the way it has been drafted. How can someone be assured that you will find reasonable people on both sides of the equation agree on the patent damages to reflect an accurate valuation of how much value the invention patented has contributed to a commercialized technology? Let’s take a simple example: the braking system of a car. A car cost lets say between $10,000 and $100,000. First question: would you purchase a car without brakes? Between two cars would you favor a car that claim it has a better brakes against the one that does not? Would you agree to say that what appears to be a small component of a final product can or will make the difference in your decision to buy or not to buy? Would you agree to calculate the value of the royalties based on a different value basis that the cost of the brakes if this patented brakes make you buy this car? Some will say for instance that the ABS braking system is considered as the major decision factor before to purchase a car. Is anyone can recognize here that one single invention can be the valuable selling point for a product? Therefore the patent owner of the ABS braking system may lose big if the patent reform act passes. America has been the cornerstone of innovation, larges companies that have been harsh critics of the current patent law are very powerful anyway, and do you really want them to be even more powerful that they are now? For the same reason you don’t withdraw such good show as CBSnews "60 minutes” from the air, it will be a huge mistake to penalize the UNITED STATES by incorporating a deficient patent system to our economy. Remember when Experts and Politicians were saying how “good” was the Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) between Mexico and the US that if it passes it will be good to our economy. Don't listen always to the one that complain but rather support those that will create tomorrow's innovations, our Inventors. I am not convinced at all the Patent Reform Act will bring a plus the way it has been drafted. How can someone be assured that you will find reasonable people on both sides of the equation agree on the patent damages to reflect an accurate valuation of how much value the invention patented has contributed to a commercialized technology? Let’s take a simple example: the braking system of a car. A car cost lets say between $10,000 and $100,000. First question: would you purchase a car without brakes? Between two cars would you favor a car that claim it has a better brakes against the one that does not? Would you agree to say that what appears to be a small component of a final product can or will make the difference in your decision to buy or not to buy? Would you agree to calculate the value of the royalties based on a different value basis that the cost of the brakes if this patented brakes make you buy this car? Some will say for instance that the ABS braking system is considered as the major decision factor before to purchase a car. Is anyone can recognize here that one single invention can be the valuable selling point for a product? Therefore the patent owner of the ABS braking system may lose big if the patent reform act passes. America has been the cornerstone of innovation, larges companies that have been harsh critics of the current patent law are very powerful anyway, and do you really want them to be even more powerful that they are now? For the same reason you don’t withdraw such good show as CBSnews “60 minutes” from the air, it will be a huge mistake to penalize the UNITED STATES by incorporating a deficient patent system to our economy. Remember when Experts and Politicians were saying how “good” was the Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) between Mexico and the US that if it passes it will be good to our economy. Don't listen always to the one that complain but rather support those that will create tomorrow's innovations, our Inventors.

]]> By: Sam Huleatt http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/comment-page-1/#comment-71069 Sam Huleatt Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:03:15 +0000 http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/#comment-71069 @Wayne. True one definition for what is and is not patentable is impossible, but as I said before, it's really the principle... that the little guy does need some protection. Otherwise, you would have VC's vet startups and then steal ideas with no fear of legal repercussion. @Wayne. True one definition for what is and is not patentable is impossible, but as I said before, it's really the principle… that the little guy does need some protection. Otherwise, you would have VC's vet startups and then steal ideas with no fear of legal repercussion.

]]> By: Sam Huleatt http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/comment-page-1/#comment-87613 Sam Huleatt Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:03:15 +0000 http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/#comment-87613 @Wayne. True one definition for what is and is not patentable is impossible, but as I said before, it's really the principle... that the little guy does need some protection. Otherwise, you would have VC's vet startups and then steal ideas with no fear of legal repercussion. @Wayne. True one definition for what is and is not patentable is impossible, but as I said before, it's really the principle… that the little guy does need some protection. Otherwise, you would have VC's vet startups and then steal ideas with no fear of legal repercussion.

]]> By: Sam Huleatt http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/comment-page-1/#comment-87760 Sam Huleatt Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:03:15 +0000 http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/#comment-87760 @Wayne. True one definition for what is and is not patentable is impossible, but as I said before, it's really the principle... that the little guy does need some protection. Otherwise, you would have VC's vet startups and then steal ideas with no fear of legal repercussion. @Wayne. True one definition for what is and is not patentable is impossible, but as I said before, it's really the principle… that the little guy does need some protection. Otherwise, you would have VC's vet startups and then steal ideas with no fear of legal repercussion.

]]> By: Sam Huleatt http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/comment-page-1/#comment-87834 Sam Huleatt Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:03:15 +0000 http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/#comment-87834 @Wayne. True one definition for what is and is not patentable is impossible, but as I said before, it's really the principle... that the little guy does need some protection. Otherwise, you would have VC's vet startups and then steal ideas with no fear of legal repercussion. @Wayne. True one definition for what is and is not patentable is impossible, but as I said before, it's really the principle… that the little guy does need some protection. Otherwise, you would have VC's vet startups and then steal ideas with no fear of legal repercussion.

]]> By: Wayne http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/comment-page-1/#comment-71068 Wayne Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:02:18 +0000 http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/01/14/patent-reform-boring-but-important/#comment-71068 I disagree about software patents being eliminated. I think that all patents should be eliminated. KSR vs Teleflex is a great argument for my stand.<br><br>No I know that a lot of people will say the problem is patent quality, not patents, but coming up with a reasonable definition for what defines a quality patent is impossible. At least that's my view. I disagree about software patents being eliminated. I think that all patents should be eliminated. KSR vs Teleflex is a great argument for my stand.

No I know that a lot of people will say the problem is patent quality, not patents, but coming up with a reasonable definition for what defines a quality patent is impossible. At least that's my view.

]]>