Patents are a commoidity like almost any other object in the universe, they have no intrestic value save what someone is willing to pay for it. NTP bought the rights to the patent, therefore legally they are patent holders. If we erode the patent system as it exist now, which we oulw if we allow RIM to infringe on the patent, we are essentially declaring patents null and void, or at best we are weakening the very concept of patents.
By drawing a line in the sand and thenj doing nothing when that line is crossed we devalue the very concept of a line in the sand to the point where it becomes, at best, a minor annoyance (see the concept of speed limits).
Reguardless if we like the impact of this decission we need to vigoriously defend very patent that is filed. NTP is taking advantage of the law by aquiring ownership rights, nothing is inherantly wrong with this process. NTP finds a company that is possibly infringing upon thier patent, so they undertake the great expense of suing RIM. They took a gamble and are winning. If they gambled and lost no one would be crying at the tragic miscarriage of justice.
In a country where we can buy and sell almost anything why would we limit the transfer of patents? Because we don;t like organizations like NTP? What about companies that buy the patent rights for technologies and opt not produce anything with them? What about universities who dervie funding from thier patent holdings? Where do we draw the line?
When do we create special rules for X,Y, & Z? WHY should these special rules exist? Do they serve the public interest? In a "free" and "just" society, why do we demand protection for some and not for all? We have a company exercising thier rights, but they are somehow the bad guys?
What has NTP ever contributed to the ecomony (US or Global)? What could NTP conceivably ever contribute to the economy (US or Global)? Put another way, what function does NTP serve apart from functioning as nonelected, nonpublic, nonaccountable tax on legitimate businesses that produce products and add value?
I would argue that an organization or individual who a) did not develop an idea, b) has neither the intention nor the capacity to develop the idea, has no right to hold the patent for that idea. This doesn't constitute a special rule for X, Y or Z, nor is it unprecedented: its been long established that entities who hold private land in high value areas and refuse to either develop or attribute the land for public usage can have that land siezed (with the owner appropriately compensated at fair market value, of course).
To have prime real estate (be it physical or intellectual) that one holds on to for the sole purpose a creating desperate situations to increase that property's value is detrimental to both society (in the form of lost public revenue and jobs) and genuine value-added commerce, not to mention being an overt and selfish manipulation of the market.
You may have already heard of this, but Henry Selden's patent number 549,160 for a "safe, simple, and cheap road-locomotive" using a "liquid-hydrocarbon engine" nearly put Henry Ford out of business in his first years. Its important to note that Selden never actually figured out how to design nor build such an engine, but he nearly destroyed what would eventually become a critical portion of American Industrial growth.
By drawing a line in the sand and thenj doing nothing when that line is crossed we devalue the very concept of a line in the sand to the point where it becomes, at best, a minor annoyance (see the concept of speed limits).
Reguardless if we like the impact of this decission we need to vigoriously defend very patent that is filed. NTP is taking advantage of the law by aquiring ownership rights, nothing is inherantly wrong with this process. NTP finds a company that is possibly infringing upon thier patent, so they undertake the great expense of suing RIM. They took a gamble and are winning. If they gambled and lost no one would be crying at the tragic miscarriage of justice.
In a country where we can buy and sell almost anything why would we limit the transfer of patents? Because we don;t like organizations like NTP? What about companies that buy the patent rights for technologies and opt not produce anything with them? What about universities who dervie funding from thier patent holdings? Where do we draw the line?
When do we create special rules for X,Y, & Z? WHY should these special rules exist? Do they serve the public interest? In a "free" and "just" society, why do we demand protection for some and not for all? We have a company exercising thier rights, but they are somehow the bad guys?
Reply
What has NTP ever contributed to the ecomony (US or Global)? What could NTP conceivably ever contribute to the economy (US or Global)? Put another way, what function does NTP serve apart from functioning as nonelected, nonpublic, nonaccountable tax on legitimate businesses that produce products and add value?
I would argue that an organization or individual who a) did not develop an idea, b) has neither the intention nor the capacity to develop the idea, has no right to hold the patent for that idea. This doesn't constitute a special rule for X, Y or Z, nor is it unprecedented: its been long established that entities who hold private land in high value areas and refuse to either develop or attribute the land for public usage can have that land siezed (with the owner appropriately compensated at fair market value, of course).
To have prime real estate (be it physical or intellectual) that one holds on to for the sole purpose a creating desperate situations to increase that property's value is detrimental to both society (in the form of lost public revenue and jobs) and genuine value-added commerce, not to mention being an overt and selfish manipulation of the market.
You may have already heard of this, but Henry Selden's patent number 549,160 for a "safe, simple, and cheap road-locomotive" using a "liquid-hydrocarbon engine" nearly put Henry Ford out of business in his first years. Its important to note that Selden never actually figured out how to design nor build such an engine, but he nearly destroyed what would eventually become a critical portion of American Industrial growth.
Reply
Leave a comment