I think an analogy can be made to copyright. Copyright, with the fair use doctrine, balances the constitutional right to free speech with the constitutional right of Congress to "promote the progress of science and useful arts".
With patents, the right balance is even more murky. What is obvious? What is eligible subject matter? The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) have a history of contradicting themselves and each other, especially when it comes to software patents.
How do we discourage patent assertion entities without harming entities that we believe benefit the public interest, like universities. What about companies that license university patents to others, as discussed in the guest lecture?
From a potential perspective in the tech community:
As a software developer, I might believe that patents are inherently evil. By simply writing code, I can accidentally infringe. And I will have no way of knowing for sure whether I infringe because reviewing every claim of every granted patent - let alone patents that have been filed but not yet granted - is virtually impossible. If the software is my hobby or an open source project, I might be deterred by fear and risk alone.
From a potential perspective in the pharmaceutical industry:
As an entity investing in expensive research and development, I might believe that patents are too weak. Litigation is difficult and uncertain. Years later, my patents can be "retroactively" challenged and invalidated. When I fund research, I risk losing my investment to a future patent challenge.
Conspiracy theories aside, I suspect a similar dilemma killed patent reform.
No comments:
Post a Comment