AU Optronics Asks For US Ban On LG LCD Sales

Eliminate Patents. by Darkness404 · 2010-05-02 04:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Quite honestly, it is time to eliminate patents. As we've seen from countries with lax IP enforcement (AKA China), if you have a quality product, the knock-offs can't compete. The entire point of patents is to add to public knowledge, but that isn't happening. So really, we need shorter patent protection times, or just eliminate it all together.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.

Re:Eliminate Patents. by girlintraining · 2010-05-02 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

...or just eliminate it all together.
The patent system was originally designed to protect the small inventor from a large business entity that could simply absorb the product into their existing product line and mass-produce it at a lower cost than the inventor ever could. This was done by creating a time-limited exclusive right and granting it to the small inventor specifically to prevent this -- thereby forcing the larger business to pay them for their invention (licensing) instead of simply copying the product and leaving the inventor with no return on his/her investment.
That need still exists today, and the principle behind it is still solid -- so solid in fact, that it's written into our Constitution as a specific right granted to the government. And you might recall, our founding fathers were quite stingy about giving the federal government much power at all even after the failure known as the Articles of Confederation. That speaks clearly to the need for patents and copyright.
The problem is that it's been mutated and corrupted into something businesses use to fight one another in endless litigation, and the patent office has been so poorly funded that there's no way for them to vet the process correctly. The only people who even know how to file a patent are lawyers and large corporations dedicated to the task. The patent office is so pathetic that they'll reject a patent if it's faxed in upside down. Imagine if Thomas Edison had the light bulb rejected because he put it in a brown envelope instead of a white one -- it's that kind of idiocy that needs fixing.
We don't need to eliminate patents and copyright; We need to restore them to their proper place and purpose, which is to protect individuals from corporations, not the other way around. And we need reasonable time limits -- and if you want to eliminate anything, start with that mother fucker Mickey Mouse and the corporation that owns it, because that's what started this whole trend towards a billion years plus the life of the author bullshit.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Eliminate Patents. by v1 · 2010-05-02 05:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

if you have a quality product, the knock-offs can't compete.
In an ideal world, maybe. (depending on the market) The problem is not focused on competing in the sales market so much as it is in the R&D arena. R&D is outrageously expensive, and has a very high probability at any time of generating zero return for all the money you dump into it. The whole idea of patent is to allow you a chance to recoup your investments when your R&D pays off. If you eliminate patents, it stifles innovation because companies start spending more time doing "market research" (corporate espionage and trying to reproduce the competition's products) and it ends up in somewhat of a "Race to the Bottom in terms of amount of R&D done because the profit margin for copying is much higher than innovating. In the end, everyone is watching everyone else like a hawk and nobody's making anything original.
Trademarks are somewhat involved with this because they help the innovators to reap additional benefits from their R&D by improving the value of their brand. Without trademarks and patents, brands lose their meaning. Just ask yourself how many things you buy based on brand. Not just technology... think even about the grocery store. Half of what you put in your cart is probably chosen by brand. How would you like to lose that choice? You wouldn't lose the choice, but you'd lose the meaning, as every brand of beans would taste the same.
The concept of patent and trademark itself is a very good idea, it's just implemented with laws made in a totally different world. (era) As with so much of today's laws, they are so screwed up from assumptions made 200 years ago that they are beyond fixing and just need to be thrown out and start from scratch with modern circumstances taken fully into account. People keep trying to "fix" them, but its like trying to fix a building with a bad foundation. If it's too broken you just have to knock the building down and put up a new one.
People that say "we need to get rid of patents!" only have it half right.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:Eliminate Patents. by BitZtream · 2010-05-02 05:46 · Score: 2, Funny

You know, I keep hearing 'abolition patents' said over and over, but considering the current system, for all its problems, does actually function ... I've yet to hear any really compelling reason to abolish it.
Everytime a patent troll gets someone the company takes a hit, redesigns the product to not get hit by the patent and moves on. Patent trolls really do actually inspire invention just from trying to get away from the bastards.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Eliminate Patents. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2010-05-02 05:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

We need to restore them to their proper place and purpose, which is to protect individuals from corporations, not the other way around.
Sigh. No, their proper place and purpose is not to "protect individuals from corporations." It's

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.
All you have to ask about a given patent application is, "Is this going to promote the progress of anything but some lawyer's vacation-home equity?" If an engineer who's confronted with the same problem is likely to arrive at a similar solution, then the answer is "No," and the patent should not be granted.
If we could just make the USPTO understand that whatever solution is immediately grasped by the first person to confront a problem is not always worth a government-granted monopoly, we'd go a long way toward reforming the system. It has nothing to do with whatever anti-corporatist agenda you're pushing. The patent system is ridiculously broken, and I'm not sure it's possible to make it work equitably for all stakeholders from inventors to end users. But if it is, then that should be the goal.
Re:Eliminate Patents. by rtfa-troll · 2010-05-02 06:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Considering AUO is a chinese company, maybe we should ignore their patents until they stop ignoring everybody else's.
Well, perhaps that's just a little hypocritical. The USA has been running around the world getting everyone to follow their patents. You have to "set an example" if you want to be convincing. China is, in a real way, just following your lead from the times when you used to ignore European imaginary property. Maybe after a hundred years or so of you showing your respect for their property, they'll show the appropriate respect for yours. More hopefully, maybe you'll realise that most of the idea is stupid in the first place.

And, the government backed industrial espionage while we are at it.
Perhaps ignoring the "government backed industrial espionage" isn't the best way to counteract it. Maybe you could begin by asking the CIA to stop spying on European (and other foreign civilian) firms and handing that information on to US based companies. Once that's done, maybe some general international agreements for everyone to stop and penalties for those that continue, combined with arresting CEOs and CTOs of companies that fail to implement effective security measures would help.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Eliminate Patents. by russotto · 2010-05-02 06:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

You know, I keep hearing 'abolition patents' said over and over, but considering the current system, for all its problems, does actually function ... I've yet to hear any really compelling reason to abolish it.

Everytime a patent troll gets someone the company takes a hit, redesigns the product to not get hit by the patent and moves on. Patent trolls really do actually inspire invention just from trying to get away from the bastards.
Broken window fallacy. And you're ignoring all the companies where the company or product took a hit and burned to the waterline. And all the companies and products which were never brought past the concept stage for fear of infringement.
Re:Eliminate Patents. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-02 06:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

"The patent system was originally designed to protect the small inventor from a large business entity that could simply absorb the product into their existing product line and mass-produce it at a lower cost than the inventor ever could."
You're confusing the situation today with that two centuries ago when patent legislation originated in the USA. There was no mass production. Guns with interchangeable parts didn't appear until some decades later, and the assembly line not until later still. The patent system was not about small inventors vs. large businesses, the point was to prevent inventions from being lost because the inventor kept it secret from his competitors and then got kicked in the head by a horse one day without ever having passed on the knowledge.
Personally, I feel it is highly unlikely in today's world that any individual's invention is going to be so specialized that it could not be discovered independently by someone else in less time than it would take for a patent to expire. The patent system today is nothing more than "neener neener, I thought of it first!", welfare for lawyers, and a tool used by big business to shut out competition.
Re:Eliminate Patents. by Aldanga · 2010-05-02 06:47 · Score: 2, Informative

That need still exists today, and the principle behind it is still solid -- so solid in fact, that it's written into our Constitution as a specific right granted to the government. And you might recall, our founding fathers were quite stingy about giving the federal government much power at all even after the failure known as the Articles of Confederation. That speaks clearly to the need for patents and copyright.
Actually, not all the Founding Fathers were in fervent agreement about patents and copyright. In particular, Thomas Jefferson himself was very particular about giving any "dibs" on ideas. He believed that ideas cannot be owned, and still stated that it is not the right of any man to own an idea as far as it is without himself. It's hard to tell precisely from his letter, but it seems like he was not greatly fond of the idea of patents in any form.
Just because something is written into the Constitution does not mean every one of the signers agreed wholly with it. The US Constitution is an imperfect document formed by many imperfect men of different beliefs and opinions.
Re:Eliminate Patents. by nedlohs · 2010-05-02 06:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not quite.
Each individual patent does not need "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", just the system as a whole. Some bad patents that are balanced by good patents for a net gain is still a system promoting progress.
Re:Eliminate Patents. by msclrhd · 2010-05-02 07:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't you mean: "Neener, neener, I *filed* it first!"
Re:Eliminate Patents. by coolsnowmen · 2010-05-02 08:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Bah, spoken obviously as someone who doesn't actually try and make anything new and useful. Yes the consumer seems to lose out in the short run for patents, but that isn't the point. It is about the long run.
It wasn't about the lost of information due to unforeseen accidents. It is to prevent two eventualities of an America w/o patents.
Either the invention is impossible to reproduce and the inventor takes it to his grave, or someone sees the invention, which didn't exist until the inventor made it, and says hmm, that seem obvious how to do now, I think I'll copy him.
If it is a legit patent, then the fact is it didn't exist until the inventor thought of it, if it is illegitimate, then prove it and get it killed, don't just sit there and whine. There is nothing wrong with the idea of patents in modern society, only with people not making good decision on what is -- and is not-- new and Non-obvious.
Re:Eliminate Patents. by BasilBrush · 2010-05-02 09:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Bah, spoken obviously as someone who doesn't actually try and make anything new and useful.

Non-necessarily. Working in the EU as a computer programmer, my ideas and creations have never been protected by patents. Software patents are not-enforcable in the EU. That fact has never stopped me creating stuff, either as an employee or when doing my own thing. Nor has it stopped any of the rest of the European software industry.
Now, is there something fundamentally different about software patents, or is it that patents are unnecessary? That's the question.
Re:Eliminate Patents. by gd2shoe · 2010-05-02 10:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Both of you bring up good points, but I think that it is "Man On Pink Corner" that identifies the vital missing piece. Individual patent examiners really should adopt the progress clause as a personal mandate. A lot of the problems could be fixed from within the patent office if just a few of them stood for principle. (They need an organizational refit, and their budget should be re-examined, but those would be much more effective if internal reform has already begun.)
Personally, I think the progress clause ought to be enforced by the courts*. The patent office gets its authority from congress. Congress gets its mandate from the Constitution (its authority comes from both the legitimate election by the people and the Constitution). Congress cannot delegate authority that it doesn't have, and the progress language reads as binding to me. The framers didn't include much that was extraneous, and those few words seem quite important. Note that it does not say: "The Congress shall have power to... secure for limited times... exclusive rights." Rather it says: "The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts..." Let me say that again, for emphasis. They have power "To promote", not "To secure rights". They may promote by securing rights, but securing rights is subordinate to promoting. It is that way in the language of the Constitution, it should be that way in our legal system.
*(I won't be, but I can dream.)

--
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Re:Eliminate Patents. by BasilBrush · 2010-05-02 10:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you nullify software patents, then you call into question all that is hardware patents, because there is NOTHING that can be done in software, that can't be done in hardware.
Indeed I DID call into question hardware patents. I'm far from convinced they are necessary. Indeed I could point you at an American company, that develops novel and non-obvious chips including a unique multi-core microcontroller. They've never applied for a patent for any product or technology, and they are possibly the most creative small company I know. The company is Parallax, and the microcontroller is the Propeller.

I feel that you completely ignored my comments on the implications of 'non-obviousness' being a criteria.
That's because I agreed with it, as far as it went.
My post basically called you out on your insult to the pervious poster: "Bah, spoken obviously as someone who doesn't actually try and make anything new and useful." It's simply an untrue categorization of people that don't agree with patents that they are not people who work on creating new and useful technology and products.
Re:Eliminate Patents. by jonbryce · 2010-05-02 21:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Bilski is different because it isn't a constitutional case. Congress has decided that mathematical algorithms and business method patents don't secure the progress of science and useful arts and have excluded them from patent protection. The issue is whether or not a computer program that works out the price of derivatives and buys / sells them in response to trades with customers comes under these categories.
In Europe, which has similar exclusions from patentability, a similar case was heard, and it was decided that if the same task could be performed by a "little man" in a control room, following instructions, then it can't get a patent.
Now this company could employ someone, or a whole team of people, pass them details of all the trades the company makes and give them instructions as to how to work out the price of the derivative and give them procedures to decide whether or not to buy or sell it. So if this case was being heard in Europe, the "little man" defence would apply.

Doesn't Look Good For LG by WrongSizeGlass · 2010-05-02 04:48 · Score: 5, Informative

FTFA

"The court concludes that AUO has established by preponderance of the evidence that LGD literally infringes the patents asserted by AUO in this action, and that LGD has not established by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted patents are invalid," wrote Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr., in a 77-page verdict.

If you're LG that is not what you want to hear.

This could be good if LG takes it in the chin.... by Immostlyharmless · 2010-05-02 04:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Might make sure that people aren't drawing attention to themselves, if LG hadn't started the fight, perhaps AUoptics might not have stepped in to finish it. Perhaps this will have a bit of a chilling effect in 'throw the first punch' lawsuits where it's not entirely sure where their own patent portfolios stand.

Patent and copyright litigation by girlintraining · 2010-05-02 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

They spend millions upon millions fighting in a broken system that for each side amounts to a crap shoot, endless appeals, and slowing down the entire production cycle with needless approvals and cross-checking to attempt to deflect or marginalize the risks, raising the cost of entry into the market, and do you know who pays for all of this?

You.

This isn't bad news for Optronics, or LG -- it's bad news for us. The consumers. Because regardless of who wins, there'll still be LCD displays being produced, and they'll be just that much more expensive now to cover the costs of the elephant mating going on between these two massive corporations. That's why the system needs reform -- not because arguments that are pro- or anti-intellectual property have any validity, but because the way it's setup now costs too damn much.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Re:Patent and copyright litigation by Rogerborg · 2010-05-02 05:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Bingo. Lawyers are the new priests; worthless parasites who spout esoteric gibberish, and the cost of their tithe is built right into the economy.
Actually, I doubt there were ever as many priests per populace as we have lawyers now. As with the Reformation, the only real solution is to cut them out of the loop, and just ignore them. Just get on with business, shred any legal demands, and when Men With Guns do finally come to sieze your assets at the behest of their masters, fold the company. Hell, burn it to the ground rather than let them get their pound of flesh. They must be starved into finding real jobs.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Patent and copyright litigation by Dachannien · 2010-05-02 05:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, the question is a bit more complicated than that. Yes, patents result in goods being more expensive due to the monopoly-or-royalties effect on prices. (The legal costs of "elephant mating" pale in comparison to the eventual elephantine damage awards or settlement that may result.) But the other question that must be asked is whether the economic incentive of patents is necessary (or even just helpful) in inducing companies to develop new products in the first place. Unfortunately, it's extremely hard to quantify this, in part because we've never had it any other way.
Similar arguments can be made concerning price controls on health care (particularly pharmaceuticals). If the US imposed nationwide price controls on medical procedures and drugs, the incentive for developing those procedures and drugs would be substantially reduced. Yes, most people would be able to afford cutting-edge treatments then, but the difference is that the cutting edge would be in a different (less advanced) place. Imagine if MRI had been delayed by 20 years or so, for instance.
Re:Patent and copyright litigation by rotide · 2010-05-02 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

People _love_ to bash lawyers but the fact of the matter is that someone has to _hire_ the lawyer before they sue/defend/etc/etc. So get pissed at LG or AUO. The lawyers didn't start this fight.
Re:Patent and copyright litigation by sznupi · 2010-05-02 05:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, if those lawyers were so crystal clear and professional, they should be able to see that LG case was weak...but that wouldn't result in charges related to trial.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Patent and copyright litigation by sjames · 2010-05-02 07:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem is wider than lawyers, but lawyers are the ones supposedly charged with the responsibility to not let their profession become a pox on society. When they fail, the judge is supposed to sanction them, but judges are just anointed lawyers and are also failing.
Truly, a few bad apples have given the other 1% a bad name.
Re:Patent and copyright litigation by dpilot · 2010-05-02 07:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

> Bingo. Lawyers are the new priests; worthless parasites
Isn't this a fun quandry.
The Law and Government are the evolution of what started in the 1200's with the Magna Carta. Prior to that we had Kings, and what the king said, was Law. (Not exact with all of this, but the general gist.) In essence, Law and Government are recognition that a society works better that enables and rewards more of its populace, not just a hereditary few. Absent Law and Government, we'd mostly be farming, sometimes having wars when egotistic kings got on each others' nerves, etc. They are what makes the society we have possible.
So who are today's underlying bogeymen?
Lawyers and Government.
Unfortunately, when corruption sets in, that's true. But WE have to understand that both institutions are there to serve us, have enabled us, and have enabled this thing we call human progress. WE have to recognize that the corruption is the problem, not the institutions.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:Patent and copyright litigation by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-02 08:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hahahah everyone loves to bash those darn lawyers and their evil-doing ways. Oh except those ones down at Legal Aid who protect battered wives. Or the ones in Law School Clinics who represent the poor against giant corporations. Or the ones at the ACLU arguing on behalf of the constitution. Or the ones at the EFF who fight for things we like. Or the government ones going after companies who pollute or exploit or violate or whatever else have you. Or that one who protected your interests in that road accident. Or the public defender who kept your innocent buddy out of jail. Or the public prosecutor who got that murderer put into jail. Or that one who went after the government for that thing it was doing wrong.
Yeah those guys are complete wastes of space.

"May not look serious" by RudeIota · 2010-05-02 05:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

May not look serious? What the Hell does that mean? Why would this NOT sound serious? :-)

Personally, I think sales injunctions under *most* situations are merely a "dick" move to shut down competition. What company wouldn't jump at the chance to disable any portion of sales by their competitor?

I think a more sophisticated way to deal with this is levy royalties, retroactive if need be, and enjoy your opponent's success.

--
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.

Not patent troll in any case by pem · 2010-05-02 05:16 · Score: 5, Informative

A "patent troll" is pejorative language for "non practicing entity" -- a company which doesn't actually build anything. As world's third-largest LCD panel maker, AUO couldn't possibly qualify as an NPE.

Re:I normally hate patent trolls, but... by TerranFury · 2010-05-02 05:18 · Score: 2, Informative

On the plus side, everybody else is just throwing out perfectly good (but bulky) CRTs, so you should be able to get nice big ones for cheap; just use craigslist.

I guess another option is to buy plasma. It's basically CRT, just with gas discharge instead of an electron gun. But it's still phosphors generating the colors. Granted, they only really sell plasma TVs and not computer monitors, and burn-in will also be a major problem.

LED may also do what you want; AFAIK those things react very quickly.

I was wondering why TFA read like a Slashvert by Bearhouse · 2010-05-02 05:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Until I read it to the end:

SOURCE AU Optronics Corp.

I'm not disputing the facts, but I'm damn sure a press release from AUO is not the best place to get an impartial view...

(And no, I'm not an LG sockpuppet).

Communist America by Becausegodhasmademe · 2010-05-02 05:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Every patent issued effectively blocks off a segment of a market to competitors, creating a micro-monopoly. We are rapidly approaching a time where, due to patent trading large corporations are coming close to total ownership of a particular market.

America is the major culprit in all this patent absurdity. Behind the friendly face of enterprise and free capitalism lies a very different reality. Corporations with vast resources and political lobbying power apply for patents shotgun-style to prevent any form of competition, so that they can profit by driving down production costs giving consumers overpriced, low-quality products.

From the abuse of patent law comes state-sanctioned monopolies, which is reminiscient of Soviet communist economic practice.

China, a formerly Communist nation is far more capitalist than America these days.

Posting from the UK.

Re:Tired of all the litigations.. by russotto · 2010-05-02 06:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hitachi/Fujitsu sued LG back in 2007. LG have always been ruthless in not caring about patents.

ROTFL. The linked article notes that LG sued Hitachi, not the other way around. And of course LG (and AUO and Hitachi and Samsung and all the rest) don't care about the other guy's patents; they don't even know about them. They're all working on similar products from the technological base, with engineers and researchers with similar education and experience; it would be a great surprise if there wasn't a lot of overlap. Particularly since their patent lawyers write the patents as broadly as possible (and often in obfuscating language) while still getting past the various patent offices (not a high bar!). No one is going around reading anyone else's patent filings for ideas.

Injunction won't be granted by MSTCrow5429 · 2010-05-02 06:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can't imagine any court would grant an injunction. The undue hardship upon OEMs and end-users makes it almost certain not to be granted. MS was sued a few years ago for violating a product activation patent, which I think was found to be an infringement, but the court refused to grant an injunction, as it would do great harm to the consumer. Although the court did seem a bit ignorant of technology, and utilized an argument that a months long total rewrite of Office was required, instead of just slipstreaming a minor update disabling product activation. The court could have given MS a reasonable amount of time to fix it, then granted an injunction. I think it ended up being a damages linked to royalties award.

--
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997

Free rider problem by sjbe · 2010-05-02 06:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Quite honestly, it is time to eliminate patents.

No problem. Just come up with a solution to the free rider problem and we won't need patents or copyright. A Nobel prize in economics awaits your brilliance.

As we've seen from countries with lax IP enforcement (AKA China), if you have a quality product, the knock-offs can't compete.

Knockoffs compete just fine. Ask any drug manufacturer if generics (a knock off even though a legal one) hurt their business.

The entire point of patents is to add to public knowledge, but that isn't happening. So really, we need shorter patent protection times, or just eliminate it all together.

Sure it is. The laws and patent system just have loop holes and faults that are creating unintended problems. The problem isn't with the idea of patents it's with the implementation.

Not Sure How to Remedy That by eldavojohn · 2010-05-02 06:47 · Score: 4, Informative

Until I read it to the end:

SOURCE AU Optronics Corp.

I'm not disputing the facts, but I'm damn sure a press release from AUO is not the best place to get an impartial view...

Well, I submitted the article. I guess I don't know what to do about the second link. The first link is by IDG and should be unbiased. Every single article I could find about that ruling linked back to AOU's news service. Granted I didn't search the entire internet but everyone's spewing the same thing. I couldn't find anything about this on LG Display's site. I couldn't find any court records from the super awesome District of Delaware's web site (holy sh*t, 1993 called and wants your site back).

I don't know what to say ... if you had offered a better link I wouldn't even be responding to this but I came up empty. I guess next time I submit a PR from a company I should put a disclaimer in the summary? It was meant to augment the first link, not be the focus. That was the only link where the patents were named. Any suggestions on how to make submissions better are welcomed. Suppose it's time I installed RECAP on all my home machines.

(And no, I'm not an LG sockpuppet).

I also certainly hope I didn't come off as an AUO sockpuppet ... apologies if I did/do. They do hold 16-17% of the LCD display market so I think they may be justified in this patent and counter patent suit action. It's not like they're a non-practicing entity patent troll.

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Incentives to innovate by dgatwood · 2010-05-02 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

The patent system is designed to promote innovation - it wasn't designed to protect any individual or corporation regardless of size.

That's a bit disingenuous. At the time the patent system was created, there was no notion of a corporation as we know it today with most of the same rights as an individual. As far as I've been able to determine, corporations didn't typically own patents until around a century after U.S. patent law came into being, though it's hard to say that with any degree of certainty.

More to the point, when the patent system was created, we didn't have works for hire. We didn't have work contracts that require employees to assign all patents to their employer. And so on. Those assignment agreements completely change the nature of patents from benefitting the inventor to benefitting someone else in exchange for continued employment for a while. Thus, the patent system is not at all operating as originally designed, dramatically diminishing the incentive to innovate. After all, if you have a job anyway, where is the added incentive to come up with these great ideas? A chance to maybe get a raise, maybe get a bonus, maybe get squat? It's hardly a good deal for the inventor, though it's a great deal for the leechers.

The real question is whether corporate-owned patents have produced more innovation. I would contend that the reverse is true. If corporations had to go back to explicitly negotiating a license for each patent from its inventors, individuals would have greater incentive to come up with innovative ideas because they would reap the benefits directly instead of indirectly through their salaries (which rarely reflect a reasonable price for the contribution of those patents).

--

Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

AU Optronics = Chinese company??? by MasaMuneCyrus · 2010-05-02 18:16 · Score: 4, Informative

You're mistaken. AU Optronics is a Taiwanese company. And even if you're a stubborn, nationalistic Chinese citizen, you still have to cede that the Republic of China (Taiwan) adheres to international law significantly better than the People's Republic of China (China); Taiwan is at the very least as respectable in the technology field as South Korea, if not more so.

Slashdot Mirror

AU Optronics Asks For US Ban On LG LCD Sales

37 of 155 comments (clear)