patents for minor developments done away with. It would certainly simplify the system.
The last issue is a deep concern as we have faster and faster paces of technology with flurries of inventions. I was in the superconducting field at its beginning. I can point to one intellectual property case in which four patents were filed within 30 days by four competing companies for the same precise invention, all of which were done independently. What benefit is served to anyone by awarding that patent to the person who happened to file it on March 28, versus the person who filed it on March 29, or the person who filed it on April 10 or April 15? I would strongly advocate that as long as independent invention is involved and there is no publication cycle in between, that there be a window in which simultaneous invention is presumed and awarded—that the inventors be forced to share the rights. During periods of rapid invention this will allow Digital to compete with IBM to compete with NEC, knowing full well that the cycle of technology invention may be days, not years.
The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
9 Sectoral Views ."
Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press,
Please select a format: