Man uses saw. Man cuts self with saw. Man sues saw company for not including safety feature that is patented by third-party. Man wins lawsuit?
It's that last bit that gets me. So a company is required to include safety features? Even if they might not work? Even if they will be cost-debilitating? Isn't that the whole point of the free market, to allow companies to decide for themselves whether the inclusion of this feature will make it more or less competitive in the market? And where does this jury get off by allowing a specific patent holder the control over which saws are able to be sold (by deciding whether or not to license the patents to each individual company or not)?
No comments:
Post a Comment