5 ms·

My uncle have invented a new type of sprinkler. Literally think of bearded guy tinkering in his garage for years. I can't imagine why his idea would be worthle

by chx 11y ago

My uncle have invented a new type of sprinkler. Literally think of bearded guy tinkering in his garage for years. I can't imagine why his idea would be worthless without execution. Instead, this is something I very firmly believe should be the focus of the patent system. He made some money on it and couldn't have without the patent system. Executing this idea is quite capital intensive as you'd need to build a factory and so forth. It's much more effective to just sell the rights to an existing manufacturer. Of course this is an idea resulting in an actual physical piece. If you mean that patents not resulting in such shouldn't be allowed ... then yes, I might agree.

cm3 11y ago
But he doesn't have to sell the patent. He only has to sell the rights to use.
- Retric 11y ago
  That allows for patent trolls.
  - cm3 11y ago
    I should have written license rather than sell. And a license goes with restrictions. The other choice is to get a patent granted and license it to everyone for free with a do-no-evil-or-revoke clause.
  - serge2k 11y ago
    But not to nearly the same degree, since now you can't gather up IP from a bunch of places and then toss it to a company that's only purpose is suing.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      So instead you have a company that gathers up contracts with owners of IP from a bunch of places to get a "finder's fee" from anybody they negotiate a patent license with. It's no different at all. About the only thing you could even hope for is that the original inventor will have more of a conscience about how the patent is being licensed than the troll entity. But if that happens on a regular basis then then the troll entity will just start putting liquidated damages clauses in their license finding contracts with inventors that penalizes the inventor for pulling out after the troll entity has done work to find a license victim.
audunw 11y ago
Patents are supposed to do two things (as far as I'm concerned): Encourage invention and reward the inventors. I think your uncle is the kind of guy who would be working on this stuff regardless of what reward is on the other side, and my experience is that most inventors are like that. Open source software has shown that all inventors really need to work hours and hours on developing new things, is their own drive and maybe some recognition. So I don't think patents are at all necessary for encouragement. But we all agree he deserves reward. What you're assuming is that patents is the only way that could happen. I don't believe that's the case. I believe patents is locking us into thinking about patents as the only method of reward. If we abolish it then other, more productive methods will become prevalent. I'm talking about research grants, competitions, award prizes, investments, or employment. People will demand it when patents are absent, and politics will shift to encourage it. I think the only way patents can be redeemed, is if they're non-transferrable and the inventor is forced to license it for a fair price within a year of registering. There also needs to be more legal aid to help small scale inventors enforce their patents. There are so many things that need to be fixed about patents.. but the thing is they're just fundamentally flawed because they're based on the idea of a monopoly on ideas. Monopolies are always a bad idea unless they're controlled by a democratic entity.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > I think the only way patents can be redeemed, is if they're non-transferrable and the inventor is forced to license it for a fair price within a year of registering. If the inventor can't transfer the patent but can still license it then there will immediately be lawyers offering to "find" patent licensees in exchange for a share of the license fee and we'll be right back where we started. You're also doing nothing to solve the nearly intractable problem of what a "fair price" for a patent is. The fundamental issue is that in practice patents aren't actually used by small inventors on any sort of meaningful scale. They're too expensive to get and way too expensive to enforce for that. But you can always find that one anecdote to trot out in favor of a policy that in reality primarily benefits the likes of IBM. But let's show the counterpoint with some counter-anecdotes. Think of any famous rags to riches (or middle class to riches) tech star. Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, anybody. Even the ostensibly pro-patent ones like Bill Gates or Larry Ellison. Now how many of them made most of their fortunes inventing things and then licensing the patents and how many did it by inventing things and then making and selling them to the public? Exactly. Because patents are used to steamroll over the little guy, not help him. They're a thing that can only be wielded by lawyers and large companies with lawyers, which means they always put the little guy at a distinct disadvantage regardless of whether the little guy is the inventor or the implementor or both.

by chx 11y ago

cm3 11y ago

But he doesn't have to sell the patent. He only has to sell the rights to use.

Retric 11y ago
That allows for patent trolls.
- cm3 11y ago
  I should have written license rather than sell. And a license goes with restrictions. The other choice is to get a patent granted and license it to everyone for free with a do-no-evil-or-revoke clause.
- serge2k 11y ago
  But not to nearly the same degree, since now you can't gather up IP from a bunch of places and then toss it to a company that's only purpose is suing.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    So instead you have a company that gathers up contracts with owners of IP from a bunch of places to get a "finder's fee" from anybody they negotiate a patent license with. It's no different at all. About the only thing you could even hope for is that the original inventor will have more of a conscience about how the patent is being licensed than the troll entity. But if that happens on a regular basis then then the troll entity will just start putting liquidated damages clauses in their license finding contracts with inventors that penalizes the inventor for pulling out after the troll entity has done work to find a license victim.

audunw 11y ago

Patents are supposed to do two things (as far as I'm concerned): Encourage invention and reward the inventors. I think your uncle is the kind of guy who would be working on this stuff regardless of what reward is on the other side, and my experience is that most inventors are like that. Open source software has shown that all inventors really need to work hours and hours on developing new things, is their own drive and maybe some recognition. So I don't think patents are at all necessary for encouragement. But we all agree he deserves reward. What you're assuming is that patents is the only way that could happen. I don't believe that's the case. I believe patents is locking us into thinking about patents as the only method of reward. If we abolish it then other, more productive methods will become prevalent. I'm talking about research grants, competitions, award prizes, investments, or employment. People will demand it when patents are absent, and politics will shift to encourage it. I think the only way patents can be redeemed, is if they're non-transferrable and the inventor is forced to license it for a fair price within a year of registering. There also needs to be more legal aid to help small scale inventors enforce their patents. There are so many things that need to be fixed about patents.. but the thing is they're just fundamentally flawed because they're based on the idea of a monopoly on ideas. Monopolies are always a bad idea unless they're controlled by a democratic entity.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> I think the only way patents can be redeemed, is if they're non-transferrable and the inventor is forced to license it for a fair price within a year of registering. If the inventor can't transfer the patent but can still license it then there will immediately be lawyers offering to "find" patent licensees in exchange for a share of the license fee and we'll be right back where we started. You're also doing nothing to solve the nearly intractable problem of what a "fair price" for a patent is. The fundamental issue is that in practice patents aren't actually used by small inventors on any sort of meaningful scale. They're too expensive to get and way too expensive to enforce for that. But you can always find that one anecdote to trot out in favor of a policy that in reality primarily benefits the likes of IBM. But let's show the counterpoint with some counter-anecdotes. Think of any famous rags to riches (or middle class to riches) tech star. Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, anybody. Even the ostensibly pro-patent ones like Bill Gates or Larry Ellison. Now how many of them made most of their fortunes inventing things and then licensing the patents and how many did it by inventing things and then making and selling them to the public? Exactly. Because patents are used to steamroll over the little guy, not help him. They're a thing that can only be wielded by lawyers and large companies with lawyers, which means they always put the little guy at a distinct disadvantage regardless of whether the little guy is the inventor or the implementor or both.