Charles Duan, Slate; A Century-Old Debate Over Science Patents Is Repeating Itself Today
"What caused the demise of Ruffini’s idea? It turned out to be devils in
the details: Deep thinkers on the subject, even those in favor of
scientific property in principle, couldn’t figure out the
implementation. Rogers, for example, wondered how scientific property
would deal with multiple contributors to one discovery. Who, for
example, “discovered” electricity—Benjamin Franklin? André-Marie Ampère?
George Simon Ohm? The “chap that made the Leyden jar”?
Industries worried about unexpected liability and demanded creation of a
scientific property insurance scheme. The American Association for the
Advancement of Science report found concerns that the expansive scope of
some scientific discoveries could lead to unbounded, tortuous
litigation. A U.S. Patent Office official wondered how scientific property patents could be written without being too vague and speculative."
Showing posts with label "science patents". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "science patents". Show all posts
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)