3 ms·
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 behin
by 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 agoNot 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.