Can innovators in our society prosper with our current unruly system? One cannot simply eradicate our current patent system and have freeloaders use ideas without compensating the original person who held the idea. One also cannot enforced a strong law against patent infringers because it dissolves any person or entity moral in producing new innovation. John M. Golden (2010) in his article in Texas Law Review suggests the antidiscrimination approach to limit favoring one party over another in regards to patent remedies. He suggests to limiting the term of patent's enforceability. This doesn't necessary give anyone the opportunity to take advantage of pre-existing patents but to tone done the enforcement from patent trollers or from major corporations against small businesses or inventors. Golden (2010) also suggests that the government agency, PTO, should be given more major power over what constitutes as patentable and providing private parties to challenge the validity of new patents to the PTO. However, one could argue with the current PTO having difficulties reviewing and validating infringments, giving them more power will not be beneficial because the agency receives thousands of patent suits in a year (Golden, 2010). The name behind this concept is called "devolution", which according to Golden, "places discretion in the hands of private parties and government" when dealing with cases (Golden, 2010). In resolving limitations of patent holders, Golden (2010) briefly mentions that patents should be novel and nonobvious in regards to pointing out the distinct subject matter to the patent product or service among other previous patents. Golden (2010) also wants to restrict remedies for patent infringement by not giving patent holders the right to damages but instead leave the relief to the courts to decide the amount of loss.
Michelle Armond (2003) of the California Law Review proposes that the courts recognize the "affirmative defense of independent invention" to preliminary injunction litigations. The idea is to focus on the defendants rather than the plantiffs, the patent holder, conduct by analyzing the infringing companies honest research and development procedures (Armond, 2003). This provides small businesses an opportunity to protect themselves against patent trolls or threatening patent holders. Armond also support that the idea that patent infringement cases should settle remedies after the case and that the courts should accurately analyze the claims brought by the patent holder on whether permanent injunction should be appriopriate (Armond, 2003). In addition, Armond (2003) suggests that the courts should reach a conclusion before any remedy is given to the patent holder.
The patent system grants an exclusive right of manufacturing, selling, and profiting from a specific invention. It is designed with the purpose of providing advance research and development and to encourage broader economic activity; however, complete disclosure is required in exchange for the twenty year protection to become monopoly.
Lehman, Bruce. 2003. “The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Patent System”. International Intellectual Property Institute. Pages 1-14.
In week 10 of spring semester we discussed chapter 11’s Intellectual Property Law. “Property establishes a relationship of legal exclusion between an owner and other people regarding limited resources.” In this chapter, we learn that the Constitution allows Congress “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors to the exclusive Right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
As long as it still causes a huge gap of disparity, I cannot say that I am in favor of the system. Patents exist to reward creative inventors by granting them an exclusive right to make use of their own ideas, on the basis that doing so will give a strong impetus for innovation. Our goal should be to find the point where the cost and benefit are in balance, which can be considered as the so-called social
The United States Patent Office (“USPTO”) faces criticism from its users and legislators that the timeliness of the patent process and ultimate quality of issued patents are inadequate. In order to address this criticism Congress made several changes to the authorities of the USPTO in the last decade and considered more changes in 2009. Nevertheless, problems persist and some stakeholders argue that reorganizing the USPTO as a government corporation would best alleviate these problems by broadening its authorities even further and releasing it from external constraints.
Opposition to intellectual property laws are becoming increasingly common. The moral aspects of intellectual property rights are coming into question, as limiting information and ideas is not benefiting anyone but major corporations. According to Libertarians, advancements may well come to a halt in future years if monopolized ideas are not disseminated for the greater good. On the other hand, disregarding current intellectual property rights internationally is leading to corporations “losing market share dramatically” to copycats producing generic versions of otherwise brand-exclusive medications (Shah, Warsh & Kesselheim. 2013). Priorities must be considered, what is important or beneficial to citizens is rarely what is important to corporations.
An opponent of our current patent law and system may make the argument that absent our intellectual property rights, innovations and discoveries would more closely exhibit the characteristics found in “pure public goods” such as national defense and education7. These examples are non-rival in consumption, there is enough to go around for everybody, and they are also non-excludable; no one is prevented from enjoying the good7. What these critics of our system fail to acknowledge is that an inventor could possibly bear the cost of making their discovery while everyone benefits on this free ride and prevents the original developer from ever recovering their initial investment of time and money. This flaw in the competitive system we would have absent IP law would potentially discourage some pioneers from their R&D. This would indicate that in some instances of innovation, the short-term monopoly provided by our patent law is a necessity to provide adequate incentive. The pharmaceutical industry is the poster child for this necessary protection provided by patents. In this sector, and to...
Patents have always represented a mutually beneficial a relationship between inventor and public. The inventor gets 17 years of basic monopoly on his invention so that he ...
I agree with Diamond’s idea that economic advantage, social value and prestige and vested interests could prevent a new innovation from being accepted. However, a new innovation can still ...
What is gene patenting? Before you can investigate into gene patenting, one must understand what genes are and what the importance of genes. Genes are proteins and molecules that make up the DNA of everything around us. In essence, they are ingredients that complete everything we touch, feel, or see. We recognize genes as a part of the human DNA. Genes can determine a person’s race, sex, and even how healthy we are. Genetics have multiple purposes. The main purposes of commonly recognized genes are human genetics. Yet, we all do not know the facts about human genetics. The Health Research Funding Organization published a study in 2014 in where “99.5% of all humans do not know that we share a percent of each other’s DNA.”
“Protecting your intellectual property is crucial to your business.” (Hinson, 2014) When business have intellectual property that is going to be popular or helpful in advancing there business, they have to take measures to ensure that the ideas or prototypes are protected from other that may steal the intellectual property. In the United States, many laws or safeguard steps have to be followed in order to preserve the intellectual property. A business owner has the right to protect the intellectual property, because the failure to do so could result in demise of the business itself.
Consequently, innovation requires the support from intellectual property protection as it critical to fostering innovation. Intellectual property protects more than just an idea or a concept but it also protects genuine business assets that may be integral to the core services of the business and overall long-tern viability. Defensible intellectual property is one of the top things venture capitalists wanted to see in a business, particularly, a startup. Without protection of ideas, businesses and individuals would not reap the full benefits of their inventions and would focus less on research and development. The strongest protection comes from registering the work thus enables the creators to put a claim upon their work into public view, and discouraging people from using the work without permission.
Because of its intangible nature, and particularly the increase of the digital domain and the internet as a whole, computers and cyber piracy make it easier for people to steal many forms of intellectual property. Due to this major threat, intellectual property rights owners’ should take every single measure to protect their rights. Unless these rights are either sold, exchanged, transferred, or appropriately licensed for use in exchange for a monetary fee, they should be protected at all cost. In order to protect these rights, the federal and states governments have passed numerous laws and statutes to protect intellectual property from misappropriation and infringement. “The source of federal copyright and patent law originates with the Copyright and Patent ...
According to the case study, a good example of a utility patent is “knocking on the door of hosiery
The Plaintiff of the case, Mr. Khawaja Tahir Jamal is the owner of the Khwaja Flat Glass Industries (Private) Limited. He said that he and his company held the patent of a novel process for producing and manufacturing sheet glass with the help of the float glass technology. The Plaintiff had filed a suit against AR Rehman Glass which was a rival company, on the basis, that they had an intention to infringe or had already infringed their patent by setting up a float glass unit. So, the Plaintiff had demanded an injunction that would restrain the Defendant from infringing their patent by either producing, selling or using the Plaintiff’s innovation as their own.