3 ms·
The fact that you can just sell patents always seemed a little bit off to me. Does that really further the purpose of a patent? I understand that we can't just
by devilsavocado 10y ago
The fact that you can just sell patents always seemed a little bit off to me. Does that really further the purpose of a patent? I understand that we can't just ban the selling of patents, but there must be a better way to avoid situations like these where the patent is not used to reward the innovator.
- the_watcher 10y agoThe answer, to me, is to focus on eliminating patent trolls. I haven't thought this one through much, but something like requiring a minimum percentage of revenue to come from non-patent related activity might be a good start.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoI was thinking the patent owner must be building, maintaining, and/or selling a product it covers with at least the amount of labor and updates as average competing product or IT project. Originally the benchmark was vs fastest-developing competitor to incentivize Shenzhen-like innovation with some patent protection for incentives. I thought quality might tank further, though, so leaned toward average.
- compsciphd 10y agoThe problem with this is, I can invent something, describe in detail how to build it, but have no ability to build it myself as a product. For example, imagine I invented a better type of flip-flop circuit. Its only useful to people building microprocessors, but under your logic I shouldn't get any benefit for creating a better way for them to build microprocessors because I don't build them myself.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoI don't any benefit for anything I do personally or commercially outside whatever people paid me initially. Why should you get a monopoly on an idea because you were lucky enough to think of it first? And in a country where monopolies are banned due to negative impact on society in about every other field? So I'm against the monopolies to begin with. Even if we accept patents, then you can be required to partner with a manufacturer within a certain period of time. This kind of thing might already exist if we compare it to the record labels for turning copywritten songs into fortunes for labels and authors. Similar middle-men would show up plus DIY kits, consultants, and advice on doing it yourself. The risks you face wouldn't be much different from the current market where trolls like Intellectual Ventures convince broke patent holders to give it to them for pennies using pressure of their bargaining power then make millions off them in law suits.
- Grishnakh 10y agoIf I were dictator, I'd definitely ban the selling of patents. I'd also ban the assigning of patents to corporations; they would only be owned by the original people who filed them. So corporations could only benefit from those patents as long as the patent-holders were employees (or at least one of the patent-holders if there's multiple), by being allowed to use the patent license-free. >I understand that we can't just ban the selling of patents Why not? We can ban anything we want as long as it's not unconstitutional. The question is if a ban of something has more negative effects than positive. I don't see how it would here.
- pitaj 10y agoJust get rid of patents in general then.
- rpenm 10y ago>The fact that you can just sell patents always seemed a little bit off to me. It is a long way from a patentable idea to a marketable product. So what happens when the patent originator lacks the competencies or capital to produce at scale? If selling a patent was banned, both the innovator and society would be denied any benefit from the innovation.
- chrismcb 10y agoIt absolutely furthers the purpose of the patent. As a small time inventor what us my incentive to invent, if I don't have the resources myself? One thing I could do is sell my patent and go invent something new.