3 ms·

What if a technology takes 3 years to develop? Should the company only have 3 years of protection?

• nitemice 10y ago
  I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but that's an interesting idea: Patents that last for as long as you can prove you spent developing the technology behind them. If the discoveries and investigation behind a patent took you 20 years, then you get a 20 year patent. If they only took you five minutes because you're advancement is relatively trivial (and yet somehow still qualifies for a patent) then you get a minimum of a year or something. I'm sure that such a system would be just as game-able, but I feel like it would kill at least some of the most pollutant patents.
  • giarc 10y ago
    Not really what I meant. I was more implying that companies should have a right to protect what they spent time and money developing. No one invest in R&D if they would only get a small amount of protection. I think 3 years is likely too short. But I don't know what the right amount is either.