I never hide my "patent", the object of the dislike, also includes the "patent law" and its guardian who rationally rationally.
I don't have to cover up my possible view - patent is a kind of evil - of course, maybe someone says that I can't eat grapes.
Recently, an advertisement of Canon promotes its technical strength (ironic is how it boasted, but I have to say that I am a patent number. The second, the quantity of the patent does not even have 1/3 of the first 1/3 When I arrived, I can't catch my scorpion), I really make me a big discount on it. Fortunately, I bought HP printers ...
For the general patents, I am a dislike; for the boast of the patented company, I don't buy its products; but for software patents, I am deeply sick! ! !
Here is a blog wrote:
The Situation with Software Patents is getting really absurd. Take for Example the Recent
Sun Versus Kodak.
Sun Has PAID VAST
. Sum of money to resolve the dispute Why would someone pay 92M USD when there is no merit in the matter The answer is simple:? Because it is cheaper to settle than to prove the truth in courts That is saying something about the whole legal. System and the patent system in particular.
I have really crazy idea: what about granting only patents that are relevant How could you possibly do that Simply by requiring some sort of review process before the patent application is accepted to become a patent It would be enough if the patent office asks??. some expert group to vote for or against the patent being granted The vote would be public so the asked experts would not dare to ruin their profesional reputation by stating nonsense during the vote They can be even paid by the applicant for doing the job.. - Isn't Patent Application Expensive Already?
The Question Remains Who Would Appoint The Expert Group: I don't have a Way - E.G. The Patent Office Could Appoint Them.
But I am NOT That Naive - I Know this will never happen. There are too much information.
