🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <66709@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes:

   >So now the original person gets BOTH rewards -- one for making the
   >idea available, and one for keeping it propriatary.  This, I feel, is
   >not fair to the rest of the community.

   This seems OK to me.  It's good to make ideas be public.  It's OK for
   the inventor to be honored for doing this.

   >A (perhaps radical) solution to this would be a small change in the
   >patent laws: if you publish before the patent is GRANTED, you loose
   >any claims to the idea.

   Wouldn't it be adequate to require that the article state that a patent is
   pending?  This seems like an improvement to me.  I kind of wonder if you
   want to hold up publication until after the patent is granted.  In the
   first place, it could be discovered by somebody else in the meanwhile and
   in the second place others could use the information in the disclosure to
   advance the field.

I don't know about this.  What happens to the person/etc who bases
additonal work etc. on the published item w/patent pending.  Are they then
going to be jumped on by the patent holder, because they expanded on a
patened idea?  If so then, why did the author bother to publish?

I've always felt that in order for a idea to survive in the market place
was how well the idea was *implemented*, just look at Context MBA.  Nice
idea, but horrible implementation.

-randy
-- 
Randy Welch   Mail to :  ...!ncar!scicom!bldr!randy or rwelch@du.edu
Boulder, CO   VOICE   :  303-442-6717
"Unfortunately, life contains an unavoidable element of unpredictability"
-David Lynch "The Angriest Dog in the World"