This text, despite all the others that I have read, does not have an author. Instead it has "The Editorial Board" claim rights to the idea that Abstract Ideas Don't Deserve Patents. In this piece, the board uses examples and logical reasoning to defend its claim that patents should only be used on concrete ideas and not those that are the basis of science and nature. To start the essay, the authors directly jump into tying the piece to current day events by discussing how right now the Supreme Court is reviewing the case as to whether or not abstract ideas can be patented. By relating the current issue, the reader then acknowledges that the article is indeed relevant and not something mundane and not worth reading. The authors then jump into discussing the current problems of having people able to patent an abstract idea. In doing so, the authors are able to assess and counter the other side of the argument, thus allowing for a logical flow and sense of reasoning for the reader. In today's society, the number of patents are skyrocketing, and therefore, according to the authors, the patent department needs to have stricter laws regarding how and when a person/company can get a patent. By having a vague and conceptual idea patented, other people are not allowed to use that idea. If ideas are being patented, then that only slows down growth instead of spurring it. The Editorial Board argues that the laws need to be stricter in order to get a patent, and because of their logical argument and organization, I feel very convinced. After reading this article I think that there should definitely be stricter patent laws because otherwise people won't be able to use certain technologies. If the idea is not concrete, then it should not have a patent.
No comments:
Post a Comment