No according to an expert patent lawyer and various Federal and military officials I talked to. They all told me the Patent Office takes a "dim view" of corporations that try to use patents to prevent progress, rather than foster it. It is a violation of the Constitution. There are some famous cases, such as when the government insisted that AT&T license the transistor. This was tied in with the antitrust rulings at the time, but it was also in reference to the purpose expressed in the Constitution. That's what the experts told me, anyway. I don't know much about it.
The Enquirer buying up stories had nothing to do with the Constitution, or patent law.
Unimportant patents can be targeted, as I said. The Patent Office will not bother to rule against this.
Patents only last 20 years in any case, so you could not "suppress" technology for long. Any significant improvement to an internal combustion engine would be a major competitive advantage to a carmaker. In the 1970s and 80s, Japanese cars with better gas mileage blew the U.S. carmakers out of the water. The Big Three never recovered. An automaker that ignores major technological improvements is doomed.
Yes, the experts I talked to also said this was part of the antitrust settlement, as I said. They described some other well known cases in which the P.O. insisted the patented technology be marketed or licensed. Unfortunately, I had this conversation decades ago and I do not recall the other examples.
You wrote: "Don’t see how the patent office can force a private business to produce anything from a patent they own - AGAIN . . ." The experts told me the Patent Office does this by revoking the patent. (Or threatening to revoke it.) The P.O. can revoke a patent for a variety of reasons. Most often because someone finds there was previous claim.
They do not force the business to produce. They force it to either produce or license others to produce. "Use it or lose it." That's what the experts told me, but I do not know the details.
This would never happen with some minor improvement. There are more minor patents than you might think. See, for example:
Memory chips represent more than 53,000 granted patents and more than 42,600 applications divided into more than 31,200 separate patent families."
All 53,000 cannot be important.
Imagine trying to wade through that ocean of patents before manufacturing a memory chip!
I should add that most of the experts I knew were in the U.S. Navy research labs including the NRL in DC. They were talking about patents that Uncle Sam wanted to use to make radars and other stuff the Navy was working on.
The point, as I said, is that there are thousands and thousands of patents. Only a few are so important that the P.O. insisted they be manufactured or licensed. The Patent Office would never bother to revoke 99.99% of patents because they do not matter.
As I said, the people who told me this were in the Navy, inventing stuff. They said that the Navy sometimes had to be firm with corporations that invented things the Navy needed. "Make it or license it."
There is also some kind of rule that Uncle Sam can cover up or make secret inventions that have military use. I don't know anything about that. The people I talked to -- many years ago! -- described non-secret inventions they needed for their work in radar. They told me the P.O. has occasionally insisted that other, non-military related inventions also be manufactured or licensed.
No according to an expert patent lawyer and various Federal and military officials I talked to. They all told me the Patent Office takes a "dim view" of corporations that try to use patents to prevent progress, rather than foster it. It is a violation of the Constitution. There are some famous cases, such as when the government insisted that AT&T license the transistor. This was tied in with the antitrust rulings at the time, but it was also in reference to the purpose expressed in the Constitution. That's what the experts told me, anyway. I don't know much about it.
The Enquirer buying up stories had nothing to do with the Constitution, or patent law.
Unimportant patents can be targeted, as I said. The Patent Office will not bother to rule against this.
Patents only last 20 years in any case, so you could not "suppress" technology for long. Any significant improvement to an internal combustion engine would be a major competitive advantage to a carmaker. In the 1970s and 80s, Japanese cars with better gas mileage blew the U.S. carmakers out of the water. The Big Three never recovered. An automaker that ignores major technological improvements is doomed.
Yes, the experts I talked to also said this was part of the antitrust settlement, as I said. They described some other well known cases in which the P.O. insisted the patented technology be marketed or licensed. Unfortunately, I had this conversation decades ago and I do not recall the other examples.
You wrote: "Don’t see how the patent office can force a private business to produce anything from a patent they own - AGAIN . . ." The experts told me the Patent Office does this by revoking the patent. (Or threatening to revoke it.) The P.O. can revoke a patent for a variety of reasons. Most often because someone finds there was previous claim.
They do not force the business to produce. They force it to either produce or license others to produce. "Use it or lose it." That's what the experts told me, but I do not know the details.
This would never happen with some minor improvement. There are more minor patents than you might think. See, for example:
https://www.upcounsel.com/semiconductor-patents
QUOTE:
"Semiconductor (Memory Chips) Patents
Memory chips represent more than 53,000 granted patents and more than 42,600 applications divided into more than 31,200 separate patent families."
All 53,000 cannot be important.
Imagine trying to wade through that ocean of patents before manufacturing a memory chip!
I should add that most of the experts I knew were in the U.S. Navy research labs including the NRL in DC. They were talking about patents that Uncle Sam wanted to use to make radars and other stuff the Navy was working on.
The point, as I said, is that there are thousands and thousands of patents. Only a few are so important that the P.O. insisted they be manufactured or licensed. The Patent Office would never bother to revoke 99.99% of patents because they do not matter.
As I said, the people who told me this were in the Navy, inventing stuff. They said that the Navy sometimes had to be firm with corporations that invented things the Navy needed. "Make it or license it."
There is also some kind of rule that Uncle Sam can cover up or make secret inventions that have military use. I don't know anything about that. The people I talked to -- many years ago! -- described non-secret inventions they needed for their work in radar. They told me the P.O. has occasionally insisted that other, non-military related inventions also be manufactured or licensed.