> So someone who makes a truly groundbreaking invention but for some reason (e.g. it requires huge capital) does not want to create a company for manufacturing it, should not be able to use patents?
If it's "truly groundbreaking", how are so many other entities which are being sued blindly stumbling into the exact same thing? That seems like a loose definition of the "obviousness" part of patent invalidation to me.
If an inventor doesn't want to manufacturer it, they're welcome to sell licenses or even the whole patent. That should mean going out and actually selling the damn thing. Make a case for its value to buyers, which should be easy for anything "truly groundbreaking", right?
But to just patent something, do absolutely nothing, then circle back around 15 years later and sue everything that might be infringing? That's the (potential strawman) situation that people are actually reacting to. I would not have any issue if these patents or licenses to them were actively being marketed and sold.
If it's "truly groundbreaking", how are so many other entities which are being sued blindly stumbling into the exact same thing? That seems like a loose definition of the "obviousness" part of patent invalidation to me.
If an inventor doesn't want to manufacturer it, they're welcome to sell licenses or even the whole patent. That should mean going out and actually selling the damn thing. Make a case for its value to buyers, which should be easy for anything "truly groundbreaking", right?
But to just patent something, do absolutely nothing, then circle back around 15 years later and sue everything that might be infringing? That's the (potential strawman) situation that people are actually reacting to. I would not have any issue if these patents or licenses to them were actively being marketed and sold.