Dave,
I was reading about the Microsoft v Motorola case on Ars today, and a question occurred to me:
Why do the rules governing Patent ownership differ from Trademark ownership? Specifically if a trademark owner doesn't defend his trademark it can be lost and fall into public domain, with patents this doesn't seem to be the case. For example take look a the Paul Allen lawsuits.
Other than showing the need for reform in patent law, is there a reason for this?
I was reading about the Microsoft v Motorola case on Ars today, and a question occurred to me:
Why do the rules governing Patent ownership differ from Trademark ownership? Specifically if a trademark owner doesn't defend his trademark it can be lost and fall into public domain, with patents this doesn't seem to be the case. For example take look a the Paul Allen lawsuits.
Other than showing the need for reform in patent law, is there a reason for this?
