3 ms·

Where's the line between benefiting the creator of a tool and putting a wall up around a tool that can benefit all of humanity?

QML 10y ago
I don't know much about patent law, but why not just allow for open use? If a person wants to use that tool in a for profit company, then they just pay royalties. Else, just let it. S.
- amelius 10y ago
  Imho, patents should work like this: Company or private person submits a patent. The government determines what they would pay to make the technology open (i.e., benefits to society). This is similar to the process of determining the subsidy to develop new technology. Government makes an offer. Submitter can accept or reject. If rejected, the patent remains secret, but other companies have the right to independently invent the same technology. If accepted, the patent is published. If other companies want to use the technology, they will need to buy a license from the government. Submitter has no control over who may or may not use the technology.
- technotony 10y ago
  If only it was so simple. In a typical product there might be dozens or hundreds of patents. How do you decide who gets what royalty? that's a negotiation on a product by product basis and involves things like royalty stacking.
fossuser 10y ago
I think in Patent law benefiting the creator isn't even part of the balance (at least not directly). The purpose was to prevent trade secrets by offering temporary legal protection if the creator gives the public details about the invention. Without patents there's a risk that the creator keeps their invention secret forever and then it's forgotten. This could still happen today, but if the invention details are ever leaked you'd have no ability to stop others from making and using it and no ability to demand money for it (though you could sue the person who leaked it, but only civilly). I think in cases like this where it's unlikely to have been a trade secret anyway the justification that the patent is in the best interest of the public or is 'promoting the progress of science and useful arts' is harder to make. This is especially true when the research is the result of public funding (though I'm not sure that was true in this case).
- kobeya 10y ago
  I don't think that justification applies when the "invention" is in every single one of our bodies and has been around for millions of years. They were just the first to look in the right place, but someone would have found it eventually, and sooner rather than later.
  - fossuser 10y ago
    They usually argue that the patent is not on the biological matter itself but the process involved in using it. This book touches a bit on this when it discusses the history of genentech and insulin synthesis. http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Gene/Siddhartha-Mukherjee/9781476733500 http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Gene/Siddhartha-Mu...

QML 10y ago

I don't know much about patent law, but why not just allow for open use? If a person wants to use that tool in a for profit company, then they just pay royalties. Else, just let it. S.

amelius 10y ago
Imho, patents should work like this: Company or private person submits a patent. The government determines what they would pay to make the technology open (i.e., benefits to society). This is similar to the process of determining the subsidy to develop new technology. Government makes an offer. Submitter can accept or reject. If rejected, the patent remains secret, but other companies have the right to independently invent the same technology. If accepted, the patent is published. If other companies want to use the technology, they will need to buy a license from the government. Submitter has no control over who may or may not use the technology.
technotony 10y ago
If only it was so simple. In a typical product there might be dozens or hundreds of patents. How do you decide who gets what royalty? that's a negotiation on a product by product basis and involves things like royalty stacking.

fossuser 10y ago

I think in Patent law benefiting the creator isn't even part of the balance (at least not directly). The purpose was to prevent trade secrets by offering temporary legal protection if the creator gives the public details about the invention. Without patents there's a risk that the creator keeps their invention secret forever and then it's forgotten. This could still happen today, but if the invention details are ever leaked you'd have no ability to stop others from making and using it and no ability to demand money for it (though you could sue the person who leaked it, but only civilly). I think in cases like this where it's unlikely to have been a trade secret anyway the justification that the patent is in the best interest of the public or is 'promoting the progress of science and useful arts' is harder to make. This is especially true when the research is the result of public funding (though I'm not sure that was true in this case).

kobeya 10y ago
I don't think that justification applies when the "invention" is in every single one of our bodies and has been around for millions of years. They were just the first to look in the right place, but someone would have found it eventually, and sooner rather than later.
- fossuser 10y ago
  They usually argue that the patent is not on the biological matter itself but the process involved in using it. This book touches a bit on this when it discusses the history of genentech and insulin synthesis. http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Gene/Siddhartha-Mukherjee/9781476733500 http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Gene/Siddhartha-Mu...