Quote:
Originally Posted by Phogg
You personally assert that patenting simple geometric shapes is within the rules.
Amazing.
I believe that the way I believe applying for food stamps when you make three hundred K a year is within the rules.
If you don't apply, you can't get benefits right?
That is not a different application of the law than what you propose in anyway. The level of innovation required to qualify for a patent was not met, but the application was made anyway.
|
And neither of those are against the rules. If the patent (or food stamp relief) is granted, hopefully it would be challenged, but this does not make the application itself against the rules. If you think that the rules should be changed, go for it. I think the rules, as they currently stand, have been established to protect those who already have commanding positions in the market. They are there to prevent new competitors from arising and allow the larger firms to engage in rent seeking behaviors. The problem is not the abuse of the rules but the rules themselves. I think a strong argument could be made that there would be more innovation if a company was not allowed to rest on the laurels of its previous achievements, if it must continue to strive to differentiate itself by continued innovations. A flood of 'immitation' merchandise could achieve this end (and already does when the 'immitation' is not sufficiently similar to engender a court challenge). A premium would go, as it always does, to those first on the market with an innovation and to those able to produce with greatest efficiency (or best able to make use of new tech as a loss-leader).