The patient system should really require a product, or at least product development, in order for a patent to be kept. If this company filed for the patent, they should have been given two years to use the patent (or, at very least, be able show a signifigant progress towards using the patent, and then they have an additional 3 years to have something on the market) in order to keep it. The patient also needs to be spicific and not general.
I realize this would put Apple in trouble as well, but if said company's patent expires without a product, then it is opened up to anybody who wants to use it. We now have laws against "cybersquatting", so why not do the same thing here? It makes sense.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
The patient system should really require a product, or at least product development, in order for a patent to be kept. If this company filed for the patent, they should have been given two years to use the patent (or, at very least, be able show a signifigant progress towards using the patent, and then they have an additional 3 years to have something on the market) in order to keep it. The patient also needs to be spicific and not general.
I realize this would put Apple in trouble as well, but if said company's patent expires without a product, then it is opened up to anybody who wants to use it. We now have laws against "cybersquatting", so why not do the same thing here? It makes sense.