[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
It is possibly more correct to say that it
enables their right to license their intellectual
property including the right to determine the
terms of licensing which may include exchange
of money, services in kind, like valued items,
royalty free, and so forth. Their are two problems
that are becoming increasingly troublesome:
1. Determining the originality of the work.
2. Unusually long durations for the right
to license.
Item one is something that we can influence
as shown by the cited paragraph
35 U.S.C. 301. Citation of prior art
at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep_e8_2200.pdf
Thanks to James Anderson for looking that up for us.
Again, this is where open standards organizations have
benefited the technical community by ensuring a greater
awareness of art sufficient to enable prompt input.
After that, the onus is on the technical community to
provide it.
Item two is particularly troubling in the other domain
of copyrights. Technical patents by the nature of
the fast pace of change has a more limited lifecycle.
That can tend to make a holder try to get as much
up front as possible. The 'reasonable' in RAND
is very underdetermined.
len
From: Doug Ransom [mailto:Doug.Ransom@pwrm.com]
Well, the very purpose of the patent system is to provide inventors a monopoly in exchange for them disclosing their ideas.
I don't imagine claim 1 will be granted or defensible if it already has been -- dde + excel server + excel client looks familliar.
|
