ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] While I agree in general with the irritating lack of
] development in this country as it is stagnating our economy,
] and while I agree that software patents are terribly blunt
] instruments, I have a problem with this view from a legal
] side. If you invent something new, have IP counsel determine
] if it is already patented!

The trouble is that we can sit down this evening and talk about robots, for example, or maybe fiber in the loop, and come up with some ideas for things that people will do with those technologies. Then we can patent those things and sit on them. When the technology finally arrives by other means and people start doing the things we we envisioned, we get to control it, despite having done absolutely nothing to contribute materially to it's development. Thats exactly whats going on in the lawsuits discussed in this article.

The reason that patents get published in a database is presumably so that people can learn from how they are designed and build upon previous inventions. Except they can't do that at all. Its a really bad idea for engineers to ever touch the patent database. You can't use any of the technology in there thats no longer patented because its all obsolete, and the stuff that is patented you're better off inventing yourself. If you are aware of the patents your liability if you violate them increases massively, where as if you don't know about them you may never be liable because the owners may never approach you.

] And don't give me the startup argument either-- all in all,
] its not an expensive proposition.

Searching the patent database is not expensive. Finding a patent that your technology violates is.

RE: washingtonpost.com: Patenting Air or Protecting Property?