Welcome to the Forum for InventorSpot.com, the most popular invention related website in the world. Read our welcome message.
Moderators: Michelle, Scrupulous, Roger Brown, citizen
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Remarks from former Intel CEO
by JoshKay22 » Sun May 31, 2009 1:01 pm
- JoshKay22
- White Belt
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:10 pm
If anyone is familiar with the remarks made by Andrew Grove, the former CEO of Intel, I would like to know what they think. If you had not heard of his comments the article can be found at: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... _YVs.2tU00
This is a good topic for some debate. Of course there are people who share the position of Mr. Grove who contends patents should require the owner to produce. The opposing (and in my opinion correct view) is that patents grant the right to exclude and do not require production. Personally, I think patents foster innovation by encouraging inventors because they can claim an idea as their own. Once an idea is patented it is on public record to inspire more creativity.
To see some additional comments along these lines see, http://www.generalpatent.com/2009/05/07 ... andy-grove
This is a good topic for some debate. Of course there are people who share the position of Mr. Grove who contends patents should require the owner to produce. The opposing (and in my opinion correct view) is that patents grant the right to exclude and do not require production. Personally, I think patents foster innovation by encouraging inventors because they can claim an idea as their own. Once an idea is patented it is on public record to inspire more creativity.
To see some additional comments along these lines see, http://www.generalpatent.com/2009/05/07 ... andy-grove
Re: Remarks from former Intel CEO
by CriterionD » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:07 pm
-
CriterionD - Blue Belt
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:23 pm
- Location: Tempe, AZ
Well, its worth noting that the relevant proposed law doesn't seek to enact a requirement for patents to require an owner to produce. It simply tries to differentiate between patent holders that do produce and patent holders that do not produce in order to determine reasonable damages.
Without necessarily supporting Grove or his article (I would have to read it more carefully to provide a vote of confidence), I agree with this aspect of the proposed reform act in theory. The general notion that a patent holder has a responsibility to produce (or to allow production) is theoretically very much in line with existing anti-trust law. To a much lesser extent it has some roots in current patent law (to some degree in the concept of "diligence" and to a greater degree in situations where a judge has refused to issue an injunction for the perceived good of all affected parties - which isn't a new thing contrary to what some might have you believe).
From a theoretical standpoint, the idea is just as useless without the execution as the execution is without the idea. The current system rewards the idea without taking into account the execution. While this aspect of the existing system can work well enough to encourage innovation, small changes can help make sure that such innovation is put to better use for the public good, and can give at least slightly less incentive to file patents in some circles where there is little motivation to bring innovation to the marketplace. The latter part is less than ideal re: encouraging innovation - but the number of patent apps filed lately is through the roof, the USPTO and the courts are swamped, and in an age where ideas are less and less original and innovation is happening at such a quick pace, this would not be likely to significantly reduce innovation if it were to do so at all.
The second article linked is from General Patent Corp's website, this is a "patent trolling" company that clearly benefits from relevant aspects of the current system even if it occasionally represents some inventors and small enterprises. The company's CEO recently initiated a lobbying group claiming to be on the side of the small guy, encouraging participation from the small guy, and received an endorsement from Inventors Digest. However this new group, to me, appears to be simply working for legislation that favors General Patent Corp at the expense of independent inventors and society in general. Companies like Cisco and Intel might not present the image of an objective authority here, but General Patent Corp, by far, is the company with the most to lose or gain here.
Without necessarily supporting Grove or his article (I would have to read it more carefully to provide a vote of confidence), I agree with this aspect of the proposed reform act in theory. The general notion that a patent holder has a responsibility to produce (or to allow production) is theoretically very much in line with existing anti-trust law. To a much lesser extent it has some roots in current patent law (to some degree in the concept of "diligence" and to a greater degree in situations where a judge has refused to issue an injunction for the perceived good of all affected parties - which isn't a new thing contrary to what some might have you believe).
From a theoretical standpoint, the idea is just as useless without the execution as the execution is without the idea. The current system rewards the idea without taking into account the execution. While this aspect of the existing system can work well enough to encourage innovation, small changes can help make sure that such innovation is put to better use for the public good, and can give at least slightly less incentive to file patents in some circles where there is little motivation to bring innovation to the marketplace. The latter part is less than ideal re: encouraging innovation - but the number of patent apps filed lately is through the roof, the USPTO and the courts are swamped, and in an age where ideas are less and less original and innovation is happening at such a quick pace, this would not be likely to significantly reduce innovation if it were to do so at all.
The second article linked is from General Patent Corp's website, this is a "patent trolling" company that clearly benefits from relevant aspects of the current system even if it occasionally represents some inventors and small enterprises. The company's CEO recently initiated a lobbying group claiming to be on the side of the small guy, encouraging participation from the small guy, and received an endorsement from Inventors Digest. However this new group, to me, appears to be simply working for legislation that favors General Patent Corp at the expense of independent inventors and society in general. Companies like Cisco and Intel might not present the image of an objective authority here, but General Patent Corp, by far, is the company with the most to lose or gain here.
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1