[ta20240528]

Literally patents.

But you have to take out a copy of the patent in EVERY country you want protection. Most companies don't do this and then whine about copies.

And lest someone whose never done it says they don't work: note how diligently generic drug companies wait for patents to expire.

[nickff]

What you’re describing is monstrously expensive, and doesn’t actually prevent IP violations, it just allows you to recover some of your losses, which is also expensive, and is unrealistic if the violators are fly-by-night operations.

[ta20240528]

1) The alternative is for millions of local-currency patents in Lesotho to automatically be valid for two decades in USA, EU, and Japan.

2) An of course it doesn't prevent IP violations - Eurocopter (now Airbus helicopters) had to spend millions to enforce their patents against the thieves* at Bell helicopter.

https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/bell-helicopter-v-euro...

* not my preferred choice of words, but its the tone on this forum.

[vel0city]

I'm confused by the ending of this article. It seems like two mutually exclusive outcomes happened.

> The court held that the landing gear certified and sold by Bell Helicopter on its Model 429 helicopter, namely the Production Gear, does not infringe the Eurocopter patent. The court invalidated all but one claim of Eurocopter’s patent. Bell Helicopter is, therefore, free to continue all use and sales of its Model 429 helicopter with its existing landing gear.

So it doesn't infringe and they can continue to use the landing gear. But then

> In addition to awarding to Eurocopter damages and punitive damages, the judge also issued an injunction enjoining Bell from manufacturing, using, or selling the infringing landing gear, and also ordered Bell to destroy all infringing landing gears in its possession.

What? I'm clearly missing something here.

[pm3003]

The first gear that Bell made was clearly a copy of Eurocopter's, though they claimed otherwise, and because of this they couldn't / didn't want to move on with certification and production. A lot of this can be considered as not being patent infrigement (development and experimentation, prior art claims...).

They slightly modified the gear on the production models. Eurocopter claimed the slightly modified gear is essentially the same (likely true) and thus still infringes on the patent (the court ruled otherwise).

The judge said the new modified gear is okay but ordered the old ones to be destroyed.

A Pyrrhic tactical victory for Eurocopter (kept their patent at great cost) and a strategic defeat (as Bell is essentially still selling their tech).

[InDubioProRubio]

And it will come back to hunt bell, as there ip can no be invalidated in europe and get a tactical defeat in the tit for tat that the ip-laws have decayed into.

[aleph_minus_one]

> What you’re describing is monstrously expensive

I would actually consider this to be an desirable side effect: if you want governments to enforce your monopoly using their state authority, you better pay for this really well. :-)

[leereeves]

So you'd prefer there be no protection for inventors who aren't already wealthy?

[aleph_minus_one]

I prefer for inventors not having to deal with the minefield of loads of existing patents.