Patent madness
Date: 03/01/2010
Welcome to the first posting of 2010, which at least promises to bring to an end the tedious ‘two thousand and...’ naming of years. We already know 2010 will be ruined by a general election, so let’s try to make the best of whatever remains on either side of it.
Given that the way we name things can make a difference to the way they’re perceived, my own new year resolution is to encourage the use of ‘grass-roots innovation’ as a replacement for ‘invention’. This is in the hope that individuals who generate new ideas on their own will spend less time locked out of the support system for innovation, and that innovation will be seen as something that can and should be the business of absolutely anyone and not just companies and universities. Let’s face it once and for all - the words invention and inventor do not, by and large, win friends or open doors. Rather the opposite.
If you’re not already aware of The Register (says-it-all slogan: ‘Biting the hand that feeds IT’), add it to your search engine favourites without delay. For example, check out this piece and consider whether it isn’t time to change the patent system so that the technology has to be there, physically present and working, before it can be patented. Laughable though some of these ideas are, the less funny point is that vastly rich companies can afford to apply for patents for whatever ideas take their fancy, no matter whether they have or ever will have any meaningful existence. This gradually erodes the space in which other innovators can operate, and so is in effect anti-innovative behaviour. Discuss...
Replies
Post a reply
Back to previous page |
