incentivize them to put the work into an invention they might have otherwise abandoned or never even began. After a short period of time, but long enough so that the inventors are sufficiently rewarded for their efforts, the invention becomes the property of the public, for public use and benefit. The system has worked as intended for hundreds of years and perhaps courts like the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the eBay case deemed it wise to continue to allow inventors the option of injunctive relief if they so choose. There is, however, another side to this coin. The ultimate goal as far as patent law is concerned is not to protect the individual rights of the patent holder. The ultimate goal of patent law is to promote a public good. It is to ensure that innovation takes place for the good of everyone. The fear is that if you do not compensate people for putting in the blood, sweat, and tears necessary to see a good idea come to fruition that people will resort to laziness. This assumes that people are naturally lethargic and will not do anything without the thought of somehow being monetarily rewarded or compensated for it. There may be some truth to this. Indeed, the ratio of for profit business to nonprofit business in existence should give some indication as to not only people’s unwillingness to give away free work and time, but also the challenges in doing so. Even if we assume that most people are not lethargic and are selfless individuals who would have no problem working for years at an idea just to give it away to anyone who wants it in the end, it is not difficult to see that there is a complex money issue with such a system. Most inventors simply cannot afford to put in the time and effort to not only come up with a sustainable idea, but also perform the experimentation and implementation necessary to mold the idea into something useful to the public. In another hypothetical, let us assume that the initial idea of the invention is thought of without any effort at all. The inventor (or the individual
incentivize them to put the work into an invention they might have otherwise abandoned or never even began. After a short period of time, but long enough so that the inventors are sufficiently rewarded for their efforts, the invention becomes the property of the public, for public use and benefit. The system has worked as intended for hundreds of years and perhaps courts like the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the eBay case deemed it wise to continue to allow inventors the option of injunctive relief if they so choose. There is, however, another side to this coin. The ultimate goal as far as patent law is concerned is not to protect the individual rights of the patent holder. The ultimate goal of patent law is to promote a public good. It is to ensure that innovation takes place for the good of everyone. The fear is that if you do not compensate people for putting in the blood, sweat, and tears necessary to see a good idea come to fruition that people will resort to laziness. This assumes that people are naturally lethargic and will not do anything without the thought of somehow being monetarily rewarded or compensated for it. There may be some truth to this. Indeed, the ratio of for profit business to nonprofit business in existence should give some indication as to not only people’s unwillingness to give away free work and time, but also the challenges in doing so. Even if we assume that most people are not lethargic and are selfless individuals who would have no problem working for years at an idea just to give it away to anyone who wants it in the end, it is not difficult to see that there is a complex money issue with such a system. Most inventors simply cannot afford to put in the time and effort to not only come up with a sustainable idea, but also perform the experimentation and implementation necessary to mold the idea into something useful to the public. In another hypothetical, let us assume that the initial idea of the invention is thought of without any effort at all. The inventor (or the individual
Jacobs%20Injunctive%20Relief.docx