View Single Post
Old 08-23-2012, 10:27 AM   #182
pdurrant
The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠
pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
pdurrant's Avatar
 
Posts: 74,127
Karma: 315558334
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Oasis
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc View Post
Design should NOT be patentable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdurrant View Post
Design takes skill, effort and talent. What's wrong with giving protection to the work that goes into design?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc View Post
That's not what I said.

Designs should not be patentable, that's not what patent law was designed to protect. There are other mechanisms to protect design just as there are for writings, art, preformance.
So you're willing to give some protection to design, but not a patent. What kind of protection should we give to a design. How about a limited term monopoly on the use/licensing of the design?

That sounds rather like a patent, but you don't want to give designs patents. How about we call it a "Design Patent" or perhaps "Design Right"?

I'm really not sure what you're arguing for or against here.

We seem to be in agreement that designs should have some protection, and that "obvious" designs should not receive such protection.
pdurrant is online now   Reply With Quote