I haven't seen anyone present this sort of angle on it, so I'm wondering what y'all think of this as an idea for reducing abuse of the patent system:
If you're an entity that has bought a patent (but is not its original inventor), you get two years to implement the invention before that patent dissolves. And unless you are an active competitor to companies you aim to sue over said patent, you are not entitled to sue them. Those two things eliminate the nefarious motives both for selling, and for buying patents.
Those restrictions would not fully apply to the original inventor. If the patent resides with its originator, then the patent does not have any statute of limitation before dissolution (perhaps they reserve the right to bequeath?). But they can't litigate with that patent unless they're an active participant in the market to which the patent applies.
I'm sure there would be lots of refinement clauses, but those are the broad strokes, as far as I'm concerned. Does this seem just too pie-in-the-sky? If so, why?
If you're an entity that has bought a patent (but is not its original inventor), you get two years to implement the invention before that patent dissolves. And unless you are an active competitor to companies you aim to sue over said patent, you are not entitled to sue them. Those two things eliminate the nefarious motives both for selling, and for buying patents.
Those restrictions would not fully apply to the original inventor. If the patent resides with its originator, then the patent does not have any statute of limitation before dissolution (perhaps they reserve the right to bequeath?). But they can't litigate with that patent unless they're an active participant in the market to which the patent applies.
I'm sure there would be lots of refinement clauses, but those are the broad strokes, as far as I'm concerned. Does this seem just too pie-in-the-sky? If so, why?