deloptes writes: > So you mean after AMD reverse engineered Intel, they make it illegal > for their own, by license agreement?
They can't make it illegal. They can make it a breach of contract for anyone who agreed to their terms to reverse engineer it and sue them for damages if they do. I can go over to UW Stout surplus, find a machine with an AMD cpu in it, plunk down a fifty, and walk out owning it free and clear. I then have no contract with AMD and can reverse-engineer the my heart's content. > Entirely eliminate [patents] - no, but restrict if no commercial use > to 5y. I'd just flat out restrict them to five years. Twenty is too long. > Few years ago when I was reading I had the impression as long as you > can pay for the patent rights you are not forced to > implement/productize your patent. Of course not. There is no fair way to do that. > So the bastards are gathering tons of patents in their basements. "The oil companies have bought up all the 100 mpg carburetor patents and supressed them." Bullshit. First of all, patents are public. Produce a list of such patents (ones that are being *enforced*). Secondly, companies want to make money. If there is a way to make money exploiting, licensing, or selling a patent they will do it. Companies such as IBM often own rafts of patents which they are *not* enforcing (they are also often pretty iffy patents). They use them to strengthen their bargaining position should another company in the same business sue them for patent enfringement. > First of all it is very expensive to protect your rights worldwide... In the USA you can get a provisional patent for $100. This protects your invention for one year, giving you time to find financing for a full patent. The filing requirements are fairly informal. There are also price breaks for individuals for utility patents and a sort of a time payment plan rather than a large up-front fee. > ...if you are a simple person with a great idea, there is no way to > make money from it. You can start a business to exploit it or you can sell all rights to the highest bidder. No, you won't make millions. On the other hand, there's a good chance that the buyer won't make anything. Most patents don't turn out to be worth anything. I know of two local people who did very, very well from "basement" patents, though. > AFAIK it was different some 150y ago. Yes. The application fee (to be paid in cash at the time of application) was more than a year's income for the average American. There is a lot wrong with the patent system. Twenty years is too long. Fees are too high. Processing is too slow. The language used in the disclosures is arcane (the disclosure is supposed to teach the invention to someone "skilled in the art", but the art one must be skilled in is patent law). Software patents not only exist, but are described in *incredibly* arcane language rather than in source code. Pharmaceutical patent law is even more bizarre than software patent law (mostly due to the efforts of Congress to "fix" it). Also realize that patent infringement is not a crime (in the USA). Government won't enforce your patent for you. It is a tort, and is grounds for the patent owner to sue for actual damages (there are no statutory damages as with copyright). Thus while there is no statutory exemption for personal use there is an effective one. Illustrative is how Debian deals with software patents: it ignores them. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
