> Yeah, but most of the patents that are issued does not cover ideas that
> need this kind of protection. I think that maybe 10-100 patents/year
> world wide is a figure that is more reasonable. There should IMHO be an
> invention whose development cost is in excess of several 100 million USD
> to warrant this kind of protection.
What a minute. If I personally spend US $10K on something, I want
protection too. In today's world, some corporation comes along and
screws me rotten if I don't have a patent or SOMETHING to protect
myself.
I don't really like patents, but at the same time I don't believe
the amount of money spent is important. An idea is an idea, no
matter how much time and money it took.
Do I deserve no protection just because I came up with a true
invention in my garage?
Any company that spends $100 million US probably has less need
for protection than I do. They can develop in secret and handle
production by contract. If they are sucessful, they keep on being
so by further innovation. If not, well then that's what competition
is about. You cannot have sustained innovation if one remains king
of the hill for too long.
> Trade secrets hinder the development until they are reverse-engineered,
> which, if they that important, will happen in a few month or maybe a few
> years, if they are obscure. Parents on the other hand hinder development
> until they expire, typically 20 years I think.
True, perhaps the term is too long for certain kinds. Software I
just have a very hard time accepting patents for. But 20 years is
really too long in today's world for even some hardware.
-- Shannon - shendrix@widomaker.com - www.widomaker.com/~shendrix/myresume.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny." -- Unknown
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/