Patent trolls cost economy $29 billion yearly

[madchemist]

I've list many examples of new products that were developed from the information in a patent.

And how did the holder of the original patent gain from the development of such new products?

Nothing, because he now had competition with same MOA in the market place. It's farlly common for the 2nd or 3rd compound in a new MOA to have the best attributes. The original patent holder still has the rights to his compound, it's just that there's more competition, which is good.

[Muda69]

I've list many examples of new products that were developed from the information in a patent.

And how did the holder of the original patent gain from the development of such new products?

Nothing, because he now had competition with same MOA in the market place. It's farlly common for the 2nd or 3rd compound in a new MOA to have the best attributes. The original patent holder still has the rights to his compound, it's just that there's more competition, which is good.

But don't you need permission from the original patent holder to create the improved compound?

[madchemist]

I've list many examples of new products that were developed from the information in a patent.

And how did the holder of the original patent gain from the development of such new products?

Nothing, because he now had competition with same MOA in the market place. It's farlly common for the 2nd or 3rd compound in a new MOA to have the best attributes. The original patent holder still has the rights to his compound, it's just that there's more competition, which is good.

But don't you need permission from the original patent holder to create the improved compound?

nope not as long as it's outside of the Markush claims. And if it's included in the claims, but not actually made (actually making it is called taught, compounds as I described earlier that are expected to be active are called claimed) If a claimed compound has unexpected activity and you can "make a showing" ie prove that your compound has unexpected activity you can also patent it. It that case it gets complicated--if the original patent is claiming composition of matter (patenting the actual compounds becasue they are unique to the literature) then you can patent the use, but niether can market the compound without cooperation. That a rare case.

[Tyler]

IWTBF? Thieves just don't want to be hassled.

[madchemist]

Bump for Muda to admit he doesn't know anything about the patent process.

[Muda69]

Bump for Muda to admit he doesn't know anything about the patent process.

Bump for madchemist and his forum stalking nature. Everything I know about patents I learned from you. Why do you support patent trolls?

[madchemist]

Bump for Muda to admit he doesn't know anything about the patent process.

Bump for madchemist and his forum stalking nature. Everything I know about patents I learned from you. Why do you support patent trolls?

Then why do you keep posting misinformation that I have to correct? If you own the rights to patent you have a right to protect your property. Does it get abused? Probably, but you're constantly posting about the evils of patents when you know nothing about them.

[Muda69]

Then why do you keep posting misinformation that I have to correct? If you own the rights to patent you have a right to protect your property. Does it get abused? Probably, but you're constantly posting about the evils of patents when you know nothing about them.

Patents are incompatible with IWTBF and the hacker ethic.

And you don't agree that patent trolls cost the economy $29 billion a year?

[Porterhouse]

Then why do you keep posting misinformation that I have to correct? If you own the rights to patent you have a right to protect your property. Does it get abused? Probably, but you're constantly posting about the evils of patents when you know nothing about them.

Patents are incompatible with IWTBF and the hacker ethic.

And you don't agree that patent trolls cost the economy $29 billion a year?

Seems like a modest price for socking it to those evil companies and corporations. :chuckle:

One does have to begrudgingly admire the innovation displayed by patent trolls. They saw an opportunity and they seized it.

[Muda69]

Seems like a modest price for socking it to those evil companies and corporations. :chuckle:

Not when such activity only adds to the problem of stifling innovation and invention, all in the name of monetary greed.

[zilcho88]

I am willing to bet that Muda believes anything that can be sent over the internet or through the airwaves is "Information". For some reason he does not value these "soft" entities in the same way he values more "tangible" items.

Strictly speaking, if it is on the internet then it is information. What that entails, philosophically speaking, is a matter of debate. But I'm not getting my hopes up. The only people who are more philosophically inept than scientists are engineers. Put a couple of them together, and you just get torrents of stoner philosophy packaged in a more sophisticated vocabulary. I cringe when I hear either side of this debate present its position.

[madchemist]

Then why do you keep posting misinformation that I have to correct? If you own the rights to patent you have a right to protect your property. Does it get abused? Probably, but you're constantly posting about the evils of patents when you know nothing about them.

Patents are incompatible with IWTBF and the hacker ethic.

And you don't agree that patent trolls cost the economy $29 billion a year?

And as I've explained many times. All the information in a patent is free and it's there for your to read. What compoounds, how to make them, what prior literature there is, what level of activity they have, how save they are to crops, exactly how they were tested, right now to an anylsis of the soil in the pots. You just can't steal the actually product of the inventions. And I've give a number of examples where the information from a patent has been used to invent a new and better product. Yet you give the same old refrain.

[coltsfan1955]

IWTBF? Thieves just don't want to be hassled.

I have absolutely no sympathy for intellectual property owners that don't seem to mind that China reverse engineers every piece of equipment that we develope. Intellectual property owners are way to hypocritical for me to care about.

[madchemist]

IWTBF? Thieves just don't want to be hassled.

I have absolutely no sympathy for intellectual property owners that don't seem to mind that China reverse engineers every piece of equipment that we develope. Intellectual property owners are way to hypocritical for me to care about.

Yeah that is a problem, that's what of the things the State Department, and Department of Commerce are supposed to be concerned about.

But, do you really think that GM has never stripped down a competitors product?

[Porterhouse]

IWTBF? Thieves just don't want to be hassled.

I have absolutely no sympathy for intellectual property owners that don't seem to mind that China reverse engineers every piece of equipment that we develope. Intellectual property owners are way to hypocritical for me to care about.

Yeah that is a problem, that's what of the things the State Department, and Department of Commerce are supposed to be concerned about.

But, do you really think that GM has never stripped down a competitors product?

I can tell you with complete certainty that GM strips down other manufacturers' models.