4 ms·

We'll have to agree to disagree, I think. Proposed remedies to the existing patent system - from the economic to the temporal - fail to recognize the basic iss

by sogrady 17y ago

We'll have to agree to disagree, I think. Proposed remedies to the existing patent system - from the economic to the temporal - fail to recognize the basic issue: the inability to scale the grant process. Your solution, for example, merely injects more capital. Besides massively significantly disadvantaging individual inventors (developers in this context) vs larger entities, itself a potentially fatal limitation, it is guaranteed to do little to solve that problem. Even an $85K filing fee would be insufficient to throttle the process such that it would become workable. Of the types of inventions likely to be patented under your revamped system, there will still be - even throttled by a higher patent fee - an extremely small number of individuals worldwide capable of accurately determining whether a given invention is legitimately innovative or merely derivative. The problem is not merely, as implied, supply and demand. It is a multi-dimensional problem that involves, yes, a deficit in talent that is not practically solvable, but also real issues in terms of the vetting process for individual patents themselves. Many "solutions" to the patent system have been proposed over the years; none have found widespread traction. As is to be expected, because the system is fundamentally misaligned with the rate and pace of innovation in this industry.

fnid2 17y ago
The patent system now accepts different filing fees for the size of the organization. That's why the percent revenue. And to say that raising the price will do nothing is not true. Raising the price always does something. We won't know what will happen until they are raised. It can be a progressive fee system to protect individual developers who don't have the money of the big corps.
- sogrady 17y ago
  My argument was not that raising the price will do nothing. "Even throttled by a higher patent fee" implies that the elevated costs would have a negative impact on patent volume. My point is that merely lowering the volume of submitted patents is insufficient to effect the necessary change, because the elements that cause the system to scale poorly are not purely volume based. And that's without even getting into the reality that dramatically higher patent submission costs would heavily advantage larger players at the expense of small innovators, which is likely to make the situation worse, not better given that it is the former who cause most o the problems with software patents at the present time.

by sogrady 17y ago

fnid2 17y ago

The patent system now accepts different filing fees for the size of the organization. That's why the percent revenue. And to say that raising the price will do nothing is not true. Raising the price always does something. We won't know what will happen until they are raised. It can be a progressive fee system to protect individual developers who don't have the money of the big corps.

sogrady 17y ago
My argument was not that raising the price will do nothing. "Even throttled by a higher patent fee" implies that the elevated costs would have a negative impact on patent volume. My point is that merely lowering the volume of submitted patents is insufficient to effect the necessary change, because the elements that cause the system to scale poorly are not purely volume based. And that's without even getting into the reality that dramatically higher patent submission costs would heavily advantage larger players at the expense of small innovators, which is likely to make the situation worse, not better given that it is the former who cause most o the problems with software patents at the present time.