4 ms·

No, I think it is important to be able to transfer patents. The original inventor is not necessarily the person best qualified to license and exploit a patent.

• jessaustin 10y ago
  The original inventor is not necessarily the person best qualified to license and exploit a patent. A lot of nonsense is swept in under this seemingly reasonable cover story. If I can't build a device that embodies my invention, in what sense have I really invented it?
  • icebraining 10y ago
    You might be able to build a device, while not having the cash nor will to build a company around producing and selling thousands of copies of that device. I dislike patents in general and software in particular, but that one can invent yet not commercialize is not farfetched.
    • alienasa 10y ago
      I'd argue that if the device is sufficiently "novel" then the cash and will to build a company around producing and selling that device en masse will magically appear. On the other hand, if Bob invents something, but chooses not to produce it, then he's effectively relinquishing his rights to patent protection. When we allow Bob to simply transfer his "invention" (an idea basically) to Patent Corp. in exchange for cash, and Patent Corp then uses that to extort people, we massively incentivize dreaming up random ideas in the hope of getting them patented. That incentive exists whether or not the idea is a good one, practical, effective or any other characteristics that reasonable people use to evaluate things.
      • sgt101 10y ago
        Ok - Bob invents something. Bob visits venture capitalists, Bob shows patent. VC's say: here is many money. Bob! form the company for patent! Bob makes company. VC's say : given patent to company; Bob you get 49% we get 51%. Bob, he is cryin', but Bob - he do! Then COMPANY have patent, patent have MONEY, many many good sales! Incentive fulfilled! Company tank. Bob say "give patent to others" VC say : auction patent. THE END.