4 ms·
The embarrassing part of the patent system is not how long it takes but the way patents have been perverted from their original purpose. The point of a patent
by seldo 17y ago
The embarrassing part of the patent system is not how long it takes but the way patents have been perverted from their original purpose.
The point of a patent was that you would get an exclusive license to your invention for 8 years. In exchange, you would provide detailed instructions on how to duplicate your invention so that after 8 years, other people could build it. It was supposed to spread innovation. It was a trade you made with the government: they would protect you, you would inform them.
Instead we have patent trolls who build nothing and use patents to extort money from those who do, actively hindering development of new products. The patents granted these days do not include instructions on how to build a device, they just say "I do it this way so now you can't". It's a disgrace.
If it's possible for somebody else to copy your invention without reverse-engineering your product, then you shouldn't be granted a patent.
- smokinn 17y agoIf it's possible for somebody else to copy your invention without reverse-engineering your product, then you shouldn't be granted a patent. No, you should be awarded the patent. It's the person who reverse-engineered your invention and did it a different way who shouldn't be found as be infringing. They should also be granted a patent for instructions on how to make the same invention a different way, this way both become public knowledge and once the patent runs out (right now that's basically never) someone who reads both may be inspired to again make the same invention, perhaps combining both into a more optimal device. Other than that, I fully agree.
- seldo 17y agoI see what you mean, but I was referring more to the situation where merely the existence of the product is enough to show how it's done -- e.g. the infamous "1-click" patent, which doesn't describe a technology but instead a method. My point was that a patent was supposed to be a trade: monopoly for blueprints. If nobody needs your blueprints, then why are we granting you a monopoly? That should be the yardstick, and the bias should be towards denying patents rather than granting them.
- philwelch 17y agoPatents still expire--it's copyrights which are slowly becoming indefinite in length.
- pyre 17y ago> It's the person who reverse-engineered your invention and did it a different way What is 'a different way' though? Can I create a different implementation of MPEG4? Or is MPEG4 an implementation of 'video encoding' or 'video compression?' In one instance, I can just find another algorithm for encoding/decoding MPEG4 files/streams. In the other instance, I need to create an entirely new format.
- zephjc 17y agoThat patents now last 20 years is completely absurd in the modern world. Anything that is 20 years old has either long ago become ubiquitous, or is long forgotten. Even 8 years is too long these days in many markets (esp. technology) but would be somewhat more acceptable.
- wmf 17y agoAnything that is 20 years old has either long ago become ubiquitous... That's kinda the point of the modern IP playbook: to get everyone to pay license fees for your technology. There are plenty of patents that only make money in the final years of their term. For example, RSA was patented in 1983 but didn't come into widespread use until ~1995 and the patent expired in 2000; if the patent lasted 8 years we can assume that they would have made no money at all. (Of course, since the inventors of RSA were academics it's likely that the patent value provided no incentive towards the invention of RSA.) LZW is a similar story.