3 ms·

Sure, so instead of messing with messy market risk, better to patent first and not commercialize. Then sue the hell out of anyone that tries (or bury whatever t

Sure, so instead of messing with messy market risk, better to patent first and not commercialize. Then sue the hell out of anyone that tries (or bury whatever the idea behind the patent, because I filed the patent, so if I can't have it, fuck 'em. It's my natural right.) Then, start a fund that simply buys the patents and "defends them" because I can get investors a 15% return from legal extortion (as opposed to illegal extortion which is higher risk/higher reward and less scalable.) Those investors will make me rich and give me lots of cool inventor awards and fancy dinners, so it all looks super legit. And make sure to hire lobbyists, because they're pretty good at making sure a good thing doesn't die.

ci5er 11y ago
Step 1: Be Nathan Myhrvold? The world is certainly moving more quickly than it used to, and maybe 20 years is too long for patent protection. The alternative to utilization of a patented technology is to keep doing what you have been doing. Many people certainly do. The the patent expires about 10 years (or less) from the time the technology is made available to the market. Is that a problem? Seriously - I don't know. It doesn't seem to be (to me), but maybe the timeline is too long?
- dave_sullivan 11y ago
  Yes, it's a problem because it causes artificial distortions on the market due to the technology not being available widely. You could argue the patent gets assigned it's fair market value because it is offered to license, but monopolies do not price well. It has nothing to do with "protecting the little guy" and in fact protects no one except for non-violent gangsters. You pay them for protection, the courts pay for their protection, and technological progress slows down because engineering around patents becomes a thing. Look: if you're pro-patents, fine, just realize how the money machine works. In practice, it's about making money and maintaining the power to do so, nothing deeper than that.
  - ci5er 11y ago
    I don't know. If they priced it at $1B per use, and nobody bought it, it would still be available for 3rd party replication 10 years after it hit the market. This isn't right topic thread for this discussion; I apologize.
  - z3t4 11y ago
    If there was no patent system, you would keep all your ideas and research secret. And that would hinder advances in science, as people would keep discoveries to themselves.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > If there was no patent system, you would keep all your ideas and research secret. And that would hinder advances in science, as people would keep discoveries to themselves. What about all the open knowledge and technology, such as most of what's published in scientific journals? Was Einstein's physics research hindered because he didn't patent relativity? Watson and Crick? Norman Borlaug? Think of all the open source computer innovations that have been given away and continue to be (are you excited about Rust?).

ci5er 11y ago

Step 1: Be Nathan Myhrvold? The world is certainly moving more quickly than it used to, and maybe 20 years is too long for patent protection. The alternative to utilization of a patented technology is to keep doing what you have been doing. Many people certainly do. The the patent expires about 10 years (or less) from the time the technology is made available to the market. Is that a problem? Seriously - I don't know. It doesn't seem to be (to me), but maybe the timeline is too long?

dave_sullivan 11y ago
Yes, it's a problem because it causes artificial distortions on the market due to the technology not being available widely. You could argue the patent gets assigned it's fair market value because it is offered to license, but monopolies do not price well. It has nothing to do with "protecting the little guy" and in fact protects no one except for non-violent gangsters. You pay them for protection, the courts pay for their protection, and technological progress slows down because engineering around patents becomes a thing. Look: if you're pro-patents, fine, just realize how the money machine works. In practice, it's about making money and maintaining the power to do so, nothing deeper than that.
- ci5er 11y ago
  I don't know. If they priced it at $1B per use, and nobody bought it, it would still be available for 3rd party replication 10 years after it hit the market. This isn't right topic thread for this discussion; I apologize.
- z3t4 11y ago
  If there was no patent system, you would keep all your ideas and research secret. And that would hinder advances in science, as people would keep discoveries to themselves.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > If there was no patent system, you would keep all your ideas and research secret. And that would hinder advances in science, as people would keep discoveries to themselves. What about all the open knowledge and technology, such as most of what's published in scientific journals? Was Einstein's physics research hindered because he didn't patent relativity? Watson and Crick? Norman Borlaug? Think of all the open source computer innovations that have been given away and continue to be (are you excited about Rust?).