|
|
|
|
|
|
by nonrandomstring
1518 days ago
|
|
|
Understood, please allow me clarify. Not to get off-topic with copyright despite being an "older author",
notwithstanding the sibling comments, I'd agree it's too long. Now, it's nice that patents time-out quite quickly, and indeed that
motivates for useful development, but what I'm talking about is adding
serial (AND) conditions that require they're capable of being used. Alice has a fresh patent on a method for manufacturing a drug. She can
sell it to Bob who also runs a pharmaceutical company and is in the
process of expanding his portfolio of medicines. If Alice sells it to
Charlie who runs a hair salon and fashion company, because Charlie,
who is not in the business of making medicines, she cannot sue or
leverage using that patent in any way or it's immediately null and
void. Charlie doesn't have an "interest" in the patent and so loses
the patent by misusing it, without any further need to prove the
patent invalid. Crazy as that may sound to some, I think its a
reasonable amendment to present law. |
|
|
Wow, I like the direction of this, pragmatic enough to get implemented but also on its way to establish the commons as a party in the deal.
I’ve long thought that the commons need a stronger representation in policy.