4 ms·
You could argue that whether a patent is awarded for an invention should have a dependency on the capital required to produce the innovation. Innovation, distri
by troystribling 17y ago
You could argue that whether a patent is awarded for an invention should have a dependency on the capital required to produce the innovation. Innovation, distribution and marketing for software has become so inexpensive that patents are seen as an impediment to innovation. While for innovations requiring more capital this may not be the case.
- api 17y agoSo if one person goes through a long and complex expensive process to yield a complex solution to a problem, and then I do a bit of work and spend far less capital and come up with a simpler and less expensive solution, I should get paid less? That reminds me of when they used to pay programmers by the K-loc of code they wrote. Inventions that are simpler, cheaper, and require less capital are worth more for that reason. One of the things that bothers me about some patent opponents is that their argument amounts to a devaluation of intelligence vs. brute force or slow plodding advancement. There really are "eureka" moments, and intelligence does matter. It is possible with intelligence to occasionally happen upon a brief compact insight that radically advances some art, and it is those brief compact insights that are worth the most.
- troystribling 17y agoIf capital is used a metric in the invention an invention that used less capital could be viewed as a different invention.