Paragraph 8 Of The U.s. Constitution

Patent infringement occurs when there is a violation of the patentee’s exclusive right. In their work, W. Kintner & L. Lahr, (1975) argue about the three types of infringement encompassed in the US Patent Act, which are: direct, active inducement and contributory.

Recently, Congress and the courts in the United States have been active in reining in what many have seen as patent system that has run amuck. In the process, they have placed a number of limits on patent holders’ ability to effectively and successfully enforce patents. But as opportunities to enforce intellectual property through patent suits have been narrowed, another IP door appears to be opening.

A patent can be defined as “a legal document granted by the government giving an inventor the exclusive right to make, use, and sell an invention for a specified number of years.” 1 These special rights are given to the inventor as a means of incentive to further advance technology. The origins of patents are unknown, though the distinction of the longest continuous patent system belongs to Great Britain. The British patent system originated in the 15th century, when the Crown first started dealing with the granting of privileges to manufacturers and traders. The earliest known British patent was issued in 1449 for a method of making stained glass.2

A patent is a limit of property rights that are related to an idea or an invention, which is granted by the United States Patent Trademark Office (Ji, 2011). Patents laws were created in 1787 by Constitution Article I & 8 Class 3, which regulates commerce within a foreign nations, states and the trade of Indian tribes (Calvert, 2016). The U.S. Constitution Article I Class 8 stated that progress innovated by Science and Arts are secured by limited inventors and their discoveries (Calvert, 2016). A patent consist of a man invented process of chemical composites and inventible machine materials. Patents now are allocated by whether or not the invention is based on knowledge available

Another economic impact of the patent system is the increase in cooperation among different firms in the market which has a vital role in build or buy decisions within companies. Patents serve as a definable and transferrable asset among inventors, adopters and commercializers. Doing so, they form the basis of the market for inventions. A patented invention can be shared among companies through licensing, thus reducing the need for vertical integration which in turn reduces costs, the most common example being Microsoft Office licenses used in almost every company, rather than designing their own similar software like Zoho Corporation, who have their own version of the software. An example of cooperation between firms which influenced build/buy decision would be the cooperation between Coca-Cola and Hewlett-Packard, which involved the usage of HP’s Indigo Digital Printing technology to create millions of new and unique labels for Coca-Cola as part of their new, combined marketing and packaging strategies.

Patents are rights enforceable by law. It is the protection given to the inventors for their invention. Patents are granted for specific period. By patenting an invention, individual restricts the exploitation of his/her patent by others on a commercial level. Invention must be new idea or solution and useful. It may be the development of new device, substance method or process. Thus, patent can be product patent or process patent. Process patent protects the patentee also against the goods if imported using that patented invention. Invention must be differentiated from discovery. However , patentable invention can be one discovered if it explains how it can be successfully employed in

Patents are legal titles granting the owner the exclusive right to make commercial use of an invention. To qualify for patent protection, inventions must be new, non-obvious, and commercially applicable. The term of protection is usually limited to 20 years, after which the invention moves into public domain. The patent system is one of the oldest and most traditional forms of IPRs protection. Almost all manufacturing industries make use of the patent system to protect inventions from being copied by competing firms. Since the early 1980s, patents have also been granted for agricultural biotechnology products and processes and for certain aspects of computer software.

There have been a multitude of times in history where patent laws have been either updated or thrown out. The Patent Acts of 1793 and 1837 are two such cases. These acts reformed how patents were processed, changed what the criteria for patents were, and organized how patents were filed. In 1849 the Department of the Interior became responsible for managing patents. The Patent Act

A patent is the right to individually protect intellectual property from others making, using, selling or importing the invention granted by the United States government. The patent was first seen in 1474 in Venice, when the statute allowed grants and restrictions of European monopolies. Similar to the modern patent, an explanation, description, and proof of the inventions usefulness was required in order to receive the patent. Over time, the British system adopted this system and after U.S. and British history together, the U.S. government inevitably adopted and modified it to what the Patent Laws are today. Briefly, the importance of the patent being legally accepted contributes to the improvement and advancement of overall technology. It allowed individual progression without the doubt or fear of others or government embezzlement. This proved that over time, society was getting less malignant and trust was improving on a political and social level.

Different legal cultures are actually the most significant determinant to define the role of compulsory licensing, especially in the aspect of a remedy for anticompetitive conduct. Absence of specific guidance from Congress about how courts should issue a decree ordering a compulsory license, procompetitve outlook dominated policy makers’ opinions in the U.S. in the 1950’s. How to construct a purposive interpretation of Antitrust law also depends on the attitudes of policy makers, while surprisingly, there was a period courts showed hostility towards patent enforcement lasted until 1970’s. Nonetheless, the line between patent misuse and anticompetitive licensing conducts was gradually vague and blur since the start of the enactment of patent law internationally.

For hundreds of years inventors have been able to obtain monopolies through patents for their innovations. A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by the government to an inventor for their privately owned innovation with an expiration of 20 years. This gives the patentee the right to legally withhold other human resources from the production, consumption, distribution and vending of their invention. In order to receive a patent, its application must include claims which define the invention as innovative, original and useful or otherwise applicable to industry. Patents were initiated for many reasons including providing property rights for accomplishments of people along with preventing market failure to occur through free riding.

The very utterance of the word patent frightens us with the sheer complexity and wordplay it can subsume us with. Here is an attempt to demystify patents and the world of legal wrangling. As the lexicon definition goes, it is “the exclusive right granted by a government to an inventor to manufacture, or sell an invention for a certain number of years”. However, over the years, as patents and workarounds have evolved, companies have gone out of their ways to exercise monopoly over innovation and prevent competition from innovating in a related area of research and development.

This essay would discuss the purpose of patent laws. It would present the two main perspectives on the implications of this law. Since it is necessary to understand the role of such laws, this essay will shed light on the impacts and advantages of patent laws. The viewpoints of renowned scholars would be mentioned to present distinct criticism on implementing such law. Gradually, the linkage between intellectual property and patent laws would reveal its role in a modern society, in which some suffer and some gain. The conclusion of this essay would tie the main discussions and arguments that were presented and establish my viewpoint on this

The core purpose of the patent system is to incentivize innovation but the current system often has the opposite effect. Patents give inventors monopolies over their inventions for a period of time in order to allow inventors to recoup the costs of research and development (“R&D”) and to generate profits that reward inventors’ efforts, encouraging future investment. In exchange, patentees dedicate their inventions to the public domain once their patents expire. The traditional model of patent licensing, whereby a company pays a patent owner to license an invention that a company legitimately uses has been appropriated by non-practicing entities (“patent trolls”) and aggressive patent holders that initiate frivolous lawsuits. Patent trolls often purchase patents from bankrupt companies, for the sole purpose of extorting licensing revenues from organizations that are actually creating new products.

Laws were put into place and enforced by the central authority to prevent one thug from stealing other peoples things. Today, intellectual property laws offer the same protections to creators. In the same way that a thug cannot come by and take a farmers harvested crops, neither can a thug today come by and take an inventors plans for his invention.