Originally posted by TJ Lambini
I am not making any judgement on this specific case, however, as a general rule of thumb, that could be interpreted as 'Little guys - roll over for the big guys, however unjust their claims, or you will be squashed.'
Under US Patent law, it is up to accused to prove that there was prior art, which is why when a large corporation manages to secure a patent, it's a relatively straightforward task to go after the little guys who cannot afford this lengthy legal procedure.
In the UK, as the patent-holder (in fact, in order for one to be granted in the first place) you have to first prove that there is no prior art. This in itself is quite lengthy and costly, and as a result a lot of small companies don't bother.
The argument in the US is that if they did it this way, innovation would be stifled and nobody would seek patents. So their alternative is to grant patents to anybody who wants one and worry about it later when the lawyers get involved.
Which method stifles innovation more?
In summary, US Patent law means precisely what TJ said: "Little guys, roll over for the big guys..."
Originally posted by TJ Lambini
Does 'easy' supercede what is right?
Since when did "law" protect "what is right"? Speak to any lawyer... they'll laugh in your face if you try to use the argument "but that's not right"...
So in answer to the question, "easy" superceded "right" the day it was embodied in law...
