6 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2019
    1. eliminating court trials including jury trials in patent cases by expanding the authority and procedures of the Patent and Trademark Office to make it the trier of patent cases

      This makes the most sense to me, as business should not be going to court and wasting dollars in jury trials, but should go the Patent and Trademark office, where all of the regulations and understanding of the patents and gains and corruption from these businesses can be exploited. This would also give more jobs to those in the Patent and trademark office and keep issues like this out of the courthouses.

    2. The improvement will be made anyway, without patent protection, as part of the normal competitive process in markets where patents are unimportant

      I wonder if there is really even a way of making a solid claim on any of these components of a smartphone. Since isn't the point of technology to constantly improve itself. If you claim on component of the phone and someone comes alone and makes the component better wouldn't they want to toss the initial component and upgrade to the new one anyway. At that point the Patent wouldn't matter.

    3. But few industries resemble pharmaceuticals in the respects that I've just described

      In the case for Apple and Motorola, I find this statement very true. As the properties for the patent system for pharmaceuticals and what goes into them are very different from the components on a smart phone. As altering the ingredients in a drug is much different for simply changing a mental in a simple cell phone.

  2. Feb 2019
    1. “It’s just unclear whether the punishment ought to come through these unilateral measures that the Trump administration has taken or through … other ways to further constrain China so that they would have changed willingly. That’s what the debate is about.”

      Wouldn't the punishment want tot go towards the Chinese government rather than all of china? And what about the companies that use the labor and resources from China, aren't they also to blame?

    2. the two sides are so far mainly at the threatening stage, and the latest rounds of proposed tariffs are just that: proposals, not yet reality.

      If these two sides don't come to a conclusion or compromise for a proposal will this actually mean war with military intervention? There's also the question for how long this has been going on, as Trade has always been a political scuffle, while countries try to get the lowest prices from their neighbors. So why is this just now coming to a head?

    3. “We’re in a tit-for-tat dynamic where both sides have taken actions that are outside the normal procedures of international commerce,”

      This just seems like a tug of war is happening, where one side wants the opposite of what the other side wants. So, by doing this there won't be any improvement or progress in the debate about trade. This "tit-for-tat" is basically uselessly inflicting pain on the consumers while the government plays their game.