3 ms·

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

by 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 audunw 11y ago

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.