🚀 go-pugleaf

riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes:

>In <TMB.91May19043527@volterra.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes:

>>But it is irrelevant whether Hayes' licensing policy is "reasonable"
>>or "unreasonable". Regardless of whether you believe that the patent
>>is valid or not, granting rights to this "invention" to Hayes gives
>>Hayes a definite advantage in the market place, be it because of their
>>income from license fees, be it because they potentially have power to
>>exclude competitors from making compatible modems (even if they
>>don't usually exercise that power).

>Excuse me?  I thought that was the whole idea behind a patent.  To reward
>the inventor.

 
Section 8.    The Congress shall have Power ...
    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries;


As the Consitution says, the purpose of the patent system is "to promote
the progress of science and useful arts."  Rewarding the inventor is only
the means by which that goal is achieved.  If patents no longer promote
progress, and can be (and has been) argued that the patent system should
be dismantled, or at least changed to fit the original goal.

-- 
Trip Martin
night@rpi.edu
-- 
Trip Martin
night@rpi.edu