EU Sets Out Patent Rules for Smart Technology To Limit Lawsuits (reuters.com) 8
The European Commission proposed rules on Thursday to govern patents increasingly in demand for technologies used in smart devices such as drones, connected cars and mobile phones, to try to reduce litigation. From a report: The Commission said the system for what are known as standard-essential patents (SEPs), was fragmented, lacked transparency, led to lengthy disputes and that self-regulation had not worked. SEPs protect technology such as for 5G, Wi-Fi or Bluetooth that is needed by equipment producers to comply with international standards.
Gee, does that mean they are going to innovate? (Score:1)
Best I could figure out for a possible title, but the objective of patents was supposed to be to encourage innovation, not to maximize corporate profits... I'll hope the discussion goes in interesting directions, but I'm not holding my breath. Especially not for Funny around here.
Related story would be Amazon's decision to kill Halo. Making people healthier? Why would Amazon give the proverbial FF? Now if Halo had produced some juicy and profitable patents, all would have been forgiven.
Related reading? How
Re: (Score:3)
the objective of patents was supposed to be to encourage innovation, not to maximize corporate profits...
Actually, no.
The legal definitions specifically mention exclusivity and profit... but not innovation.
A patent is a form of intellectual property protection that gives the creator of an invention the exclusive legal right to market, sell, manufacture, and profit from that invention.
The objective of patents is to provide a right to an inventor(s) to exclude others from exploiting the patented invention.
Patents are the legal version of a child screaming "MINE!" and not letting anyone else play with the toys.
Re:Gee, does that mean they are going to innovate? (Score:4, Interesting)
Replying to myself here, but....
Patents are the legal version of a child screaming "MINE!" and not letting anyone else play with the toys.
Mandatory licensing for Standards Essential Patents (SEPs) was enforced by the standards organizations as part of the requirements for being included in a standard. It sounds like the EU is taking this a step further, and making mandatory licensing requirements a law.
This would be a big deal. Corporations currently lock discoveries away behind patents to prevent their use in ways that would compete with their profitable business lines. Forcing FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, And Non Discriminatory) licensing would be a major upheaval.
I expect they will limit the categories this is applied to, but progress is progress...
Re:Gee, does that mean they are going to innovate? (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the big issues is that larger companies often cross licence their own patents, rather than paying a licence fee. Startups and smaller companies without big patent portfolios can't do that. Makes it hard for new players to enter the market.
Re: (Score:2)
There seems to be some confusion in the discussion about why they wanted to have some system to encourage innovation and the laws that got written to implement and instantiate the "why". I think the obfuscation was deliberate from that reputed "reply" to my original comment.
Doesn't seem worth pursuing clarification or depth now. The lifespan of "viable" discussions on Slashdot is brief, and it does not appear that this was ever one of them. Nor did I have much hope for Funny around here. (Just checked and c
Re: (Score:1)
NAK
Re: EU Rules? (Score:3)
Hopefully you donâ(TM)t play any sports.
Regulation is the equivalent of rules for a game. If people donâ(TM)t play fair, then you adjust the rules. No point in having a standard if it is limited to buddies of one of the patent owners.