The ridiculous expansion of IP rights globally is HAMPERING, not FOSTERING innovation.
Remember, the ONLY reason intellectual property rights exist is to promote innovation.
Yet we have expanded it to instead protect legacy business models, stifle competition, and LIMIT innovation.
Do you REALLY want to wrestle with the legal implications of patenting a business method? For example, should a particular method of COPE underwriting nalysis be patented? Can you patent your underwriting guidelines?
Motorola just released a new phone. They disabled multi-touch, something which the phone is both capable of and enabled to do in the European market. But here in the US, because Apple holds a vague software patent, they had to dumb down the phone to legally protect themselves.
We need to be talking about LIMITING intellectual property rights not expanding them.
The ridiculous expansion of IP rights globally is HAMPERING, not FOSTERING innovation.
Remember, the ONLY reason intellectual property rights exist is to promote innovation.
Yet we have expanded it to instead protect legacy business models, stifle competition, and LIMIT innovation.
Do you REALLY want to wrestle with the legal implications of patenting a business method? For example, should a particular method of COPE underwriting nalysis be patented? Can you patent your underwriting guidelines?
Motorola just released a new phone. They disabled multi-touch, something which the phone is both capable of and enabled to do in the European market. But here in the US, because Apple holds a vague software patent, they had to dumb down the phone to legally protect themselves.
We need to be talking about LIMITING intellectual property rights not expanding them.