2 ms·
This is a very interesting idea, but I think it would be virtually unlegislateable with patents because, among other reasons, you can (and people do) patent thi
by alextp 17y ago
This is a very interesting idea, but I think it would be virtually unlegislateable with patents because, among other reasons, you can (and people do) patent things that do not have a consistent unit you charge for (and that don't even go into the final product). For a cheap example, take two pharmaceutical compounds, one that works better in 1mg doses and another that works better on 100mg doses. Should the second be a hundred times as expensive as the first or not? Or suppose someone devises a new way of manufacturing battery cells that are exactly equal to current batteries except the process is a lot cheaper. The fee would apply one-time to the company that used this patented process or would it apply to all products built with this process? And how would, say, the fees of a 9volt and an AAA battery be balanced?
So I guess the patent system is too broad for its own good.
- lutorm 17y agoI don't understand your comment. The fee would apply to the patent holder, for retaining the patent. The licensing fees could be whatever the patent holder wants, if they decide to license it. That's no different from today. If the new way of manufacturing battery cells is of no commercial value and that you don't make any money off of it, then what's the point of holding the patent?
- alextp 17y agoI was responding to the $/minute equivalent to song licensing earlier in the thread.