I wouldn't expect these structures to remain tax-free for long.
> 1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:
> (a) artificial islands;
> (b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;
> (c) installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.
I am not talking about the laws or the words, I'm talking about how people in the patent office behaved. In the past, if you wanted a patent for a device, you had to be able to show that what you are describing in the patent actually would work, that you'd actually created something that implemented the idea in the patent.
That is no longer the case. Now you can simply describe something on paper and get a patent, even if the description in the paper isn't sufficient to implement the invention by others.
The whole point, the idea, the impetus behind patents (as a concept) is that you are sharing your repeatable design with the world so they to can replicate your invention in /their/ lab and build upon it.
The point was to make the world a better place for everyone by releasing ideas in the the world with a mechanism that can protect them and enable the risk taker to reap the rewards of the risk without the fear that someone will simply steal the idea and make a bunch of money off it and leave you in the dust.
This philosophy has been lost and patents have morphed into a corporate strategy that makes the world worse for everyone except the patent holder.
The content of the patent has no value. You can have the best idea, with a device, with a demonstrable instance of the idea and it doesn't matter because it still costs millions of dollars to defend in court.
Decades ago, patents had value, now they have none. They describe processes that won't work. They are vague enough to cover, not only the invention, but anything even remotely /like/ the invention even if the invention as described in the patent would never work.
Patents used to be tools of inventors and now they are tools of lawyers.
So yeah, the lingo hasn't changed, but the practice has. It's the practice that I'm talking about. The Bill of Rights hasn't changed in hundreds of years, but today, the press is put in jail, the govt listens to your calls and reads your emails...
Patents used to be tools of inventors and now they are tools of lawyers.
Depressingly true. Mrs Browl works for an electronic discovery company, whose service is to organize huge volumes of documents for legal cases, and it happens that many of these are related to IT patents. For obvious reasons I can't discuss any specifics, but even casual shoulder-surfing has resulted in a great many eyerolls.
To me, a major part of the problem is that while the profession of law purports to be based on reason, it lacks a proper axiomatic framework and success frequently depends on the exploitation of ambiguity...and sadly, many lack the critical thinking skills to deconstruct arguments made this way. If I were ever unlucky enough to be defending myself in court, I'd seriously consider opting for a trial by judge rather than by jury. I would far rather have one intelligent person evaluating my case than 12 random folk.
Oh I wasn't disagreeing with you, just citing some information I thought might be of interest.
I agree that the patent system is broken. Personally I think that the biggest problem is that there's so much prior art and technology advances fast that the patent offices are simply unable to cope, and just rush patents through.
I actually hold a patent on something I've never built, and where there, erhm how do I phrase this, might be prior art that could invalidate the patent.
Proposals for such inoperable machines [perpetual mobile] have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states:
With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.[9]
And, further, that:
A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.[10]
There's the piracy, and there's also the question of replacing components. The costs of replacing machines on a boat are very different from on level ground that trucks can drive to.
