5 ms·

You persist in focusing on patents as a reward. That is not their intended function, it is to stimulate innovation. Society has no interest in making you rich,

by lutorm 17y ago

You persist in focusing on patents as a reward. That is not their intended function, it is to stimulate innovation. Society has no interest in making you rich, unless it is a (necessary) side effect of stimulating innovation. The stimulating effect of financial incentives for the patent holder must always be weighed against the stifling effect of the subsequent monopoly. Unless the former outweighs the latter, patents in their current form should be abolished. For it to work, the bar for "nonobviousness" must be set infinitely higher than it is now. I'm not entirely opposed to software patents. For the RSA algorithm, for example, I could see the validity of claiming it's a patentable invention. But there are a few key requirements: a) Patents can only cover process, not end results. If you patent a way to make steel, I'm free to develop another way if I don't want to or am able to license your method. In the same way, if you patent a way to "process gestures on a multi-touch device", I should be free to implement another, independent way of accomplishing the same result. You must not be able to patent the idea of accepting input through gestures. Doing so will severely stifle innovation, because there is no longer any incentive for anyone to put in the work to improve the idea; the first, half-assed patented idea then becomes the way or the highway... b) For the system to work in practice, there must be a way that one can reasonably find out whether something is patented. That means the bar must be very high, so that the number is lower, and the overly abstract, overbroad patent descriptions currently must be replaced with something much more precise. I think the bar should be high enough that the numbers of patents approved number in the hundreds, max, per year. For it to be patented, it should be freaking genius. Your jaw should drop from pure awe when you read the description. If the above requirements are not met, the best way to proceed is to abolish the whole idea. As an aside, I'm amused how many people who normally are adamant about the supreme efficiency of free markets then completely turn around and use arguments like yours above about "why should they develop this when someone will just steal the idea". What is the fundamental difference between patents and preventing someone from opening a coffee shop in a good location because you opened one there first? Why don't you think free competition will produce the most efficient outcome when it comes to patents?

fnid2 17y ago
The original idea of patents was to promote innovation through sharing ideas. I agree that the current system doesn't live up to that, but I'm not sure that doing away with patents is the solution. Patents are often like art. You can see a painting and think, "I could do that!" You can look at a patent and think, "I could code that." But you didn't code it before you saw the patent, so you don't really know for sure. Hindsight is 20/20. Patents are a reward for both the inventor and society. If we reduce the reward for innovation, we reduce innovation. Especially very expensive innovation that may yield products that are easy to copy. I suppose my big concern is that for the individual inventor, there really isn't any protection at all besides patents. An individual isn't big enough to mass produce products or protect them or market them more than the big corps, but the individual can sell the patent or get investors to help him/her fight infringement. Yes, the megacorps get most of the benefit now, but that is largely because most inventors work for the megacorps. But a patent only costs a few hundred dollars and is well within reach of individuals who are willing to do the research and put the effort into building a patent to protect an idea. Patents are the only protection left for joe or jane inventor. No megacorp is going to pay for your idea or your invention if they can just build it themselves. As for free markets, I don't believe in free markets, or at least, I don't believe the market is free -- or ever will be free. It's not free because special interests want to protect their access to the market. I think the market should be regulated, especially when the public has to bail out systems that collapse due to a lack of regulation. But I digress... Design patents cover end results. If I patent a design, you can't use the same design -- even with a different process to get there. There is a reasonable way to find out if something is patented, the USPTO has a patent search. It could be better, but no one ever says, "Hey, I should build this, let me search the USPTO first!" They just start coding or building. It may be too easy to get a patent and the USPTO may not have the experience to evaluate nonobviousness -- unfortunately, Einstein doesn't work there anymore. Perhaps the govt should pay more for people who have the experience to adequately evaluate claims and charge more to get the patent approved.
- cma 17y ago
  >I suppose my big concern is that for the individual inventor, there really isn't any protection at all besides patents. An individual isn't big enough to mass produce products or protect them or market them more than the big corps, but the individual can sell the patent or get investors to help him/her fight infringement. Why is that your big concern? Would you like to take a guess at what percentage of GDP that example represents in practice? (hint, single digit is too high).

by lutorm 17y ago

fnid2 17y ago

The original idea of patents was to promote innovation through sharing ideas. I agree that the current system doesn't live up to that, but I'm not sure that doing away with patents is the solution. Patents are often like art. You can see a painting and think, "I could do that!" You can look at a patent and think, "I could code that." But you didn't code it before you saw the patent, so you don't really know for sure. Hindsight is 20/20. Patents are a reward for both the inventor and society. If we reduce the reward for innovation, we reduce innovation. Especially very expensive innovation that may yield products that are easy to copy. I suppose my big concern is that for the individual inventor, there really isn't any protection at all besides patents. An individual isn't big enough to mass produce products or protect them or market them more than the big corps, but the individual can sell the patent or get investors to help him/her fight infringement. Yes, the megacorps get most of the benefit now, but that is largely because most inventors work for the megacorps. But a patent only costs a few hundred dollars and is well within reach of individuals who are willing to do the research and put the effort into building a patent to protect an idea. Patents are the only protection left for joe or jane inventor. No megacorp is going to pay for your idea or your invention if they can just build it themselves. As for free markets, I don't believe in free markets, or at least, I don't believe the market is free -- or ever will be free. It's not free because special interests want to protect their access to the market. I think the market should be regulated, especially when the public has to bail out systems that collapse due to a lack of regulation. But I digress... Design patents cover end results. If I patent a design, you can't use the same design -- even with a different process to get there. There is a reasonable way to find out if something is patented, the USPTO has a patent search. It could be better, but no one ever says, "Hey, I should build this, let me search the USPTO first!" They just start coding or building. It may be too easy to get a patent and the USPTO may not have the experience to evaluate nonobviousness -- unfortunately, Einstein doesn't work there anymore. Perhaps the govt should pay more for people who have the experience to adequately evaluate claims and charge more to get the patent approved.

cma 17y ago
>I suppose my big concern is that for the individual inventor, there really isn't any protection at all besides patents. An individual isn't big enough to mass produce products or protect them or market them more than the big corps, but the individual can sell the patent or get investors to help him/her fight infringement. Why is that your big concern? Would you like to take a guess at what percentage of GDP that example represents in practice? (hint, single digit is too high).