Promote progress?

Published on May 25, 2006 by Philip Mann

A recent patently-O blog entry discusses the economy in the so-called "patent thickets" (which, I understand, is the new name for what used to be called "a full art"). There is some detailed discussion and fascinating on, inter alia, the recent decision by ebay and holders of how patents such act a "maze", since injunctions (supposedly) already are not an inevitable conclusion.

I understand the question is whether an extensive "tangle of patent" could lead to more or less patent litigation and if the case of ebay is to reduce or even increase where exits a tangle of such patent litigation. While I intend not to know or understand all the economic theory behind the opposing views, has surprised of what I think is an emphasis among commentators wrong. Why theorizing it about what this effect have in litigation and the propensity for patent owners to sue? Why all the concern if this encourage or discourage the so-called "patent trolls"? Is the goal of the patent system just to make life easier for lawyers and judges? Is to enable big companies to steal technology with impunity? And (should be just all) is simply to provide lucrative opportunities for quotas to patent lawyers test fees like me?

The constitutional system patent justification is, of course, to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" - not to provide a comfortable life patent attorneys or to make life easier for federal judges. The issue I have (and really don't know) if the patent system is or does not meet its mission of promoting the progress of science and useful arts. Nobody really carried out a scientific study of whether patents promote scientific progress and if changes deep in the system of patents in the last 24 years have been effective indeed this objective?

There is no doubt that the explosion in the patent and the growth of intellectual property has been great for lawyers. It has also been good for businesses (large and small) and even individuals capable of exploiting their patents. But once again, the question is whether advances in science and useful arts has really been promoted by what has happened and is happening now. Frankly, I'm not sure that nobody really concerned this already.

View the original article here