6 ms·

great example! It's probably why the Laser was never commercialized and is not used anywhere in anything. Good example. (/s - sorry. your example is a great

great example! It's probably why the Laser was never commercialized and is not used anywhere in anything. Good example. (/s - sorry. your example is a great example of patents working exactly and precisely like they should. I have a cheap and perfect laser in my mouse next to me right now, that's perfect and great and cost its manufacturer pennies. couldn't have picked a worse example.)

Retric 10y ago
"Finally, in 1987, Patlex won its first decisive enforcement victory, against Control Laser corporation, a manufacturer of lasers.[29] Rather than be bankrupted by the damages and the lack of a license to the technology, the board of Control Laser turned ownership of the company over to Patlex in a settlement deal" I am not sure that's working as intended in any way shape or form, considering the invention was "Gould's name for the device was first introduced to the public in a conference presentation in 1959"
- logicallee 10y ago
  oh I see, by "indefinitely", where you wrote, >it's easy for a cluster of bad patents to block progress indefinitely you meant like from 1959 to 1987. Sure is indefinitely. Imagine, if the world had ENDED in 1988 or 1989, then the world never would have gotten a patent-free laser. /s - nothing else to reply to you. get some perspective before throwing words like indefinitely around. I remember when I was 12 I thought like 4 years ago was an eternity ago, I poo-poo'd books published more than 2 or at the most 3 years ago and I thought everything was instantly out of date. turns out societies actually operate on a different timescale from 12 year-olds. but otherwise everything you wrote makes sense. and if the world were to end in the next 24 months, then a lot of patent-encumbered technologies simply will NEVER be brought to market by certain companies, due to patents and patents alone. I absolutely do believe that. The only thing is that I plan on the world existing longer than this time-frame - but if not, you're totally right and a lot of technology is being held back. only time will tell which of us is right.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Gould was issued U.S. Patent 4,161,436 in 1979, covering a variety of laser applications including heating and vaporizing materials, welding, drilling, cutting, measuring distance, communication systems, television, laser photocopiers and other photochemical applications, and laser fusion.[25] So 1979 + 20 = 1999 - 1959 = 40 years which is twice the nominal 20 year patent terms. Critically the original patent was overturned based on a private notebook from 1957. So, the public gained NOTHING from these patents because someone else had already published and others where actually creating the product and bringing it to market, but no based on a notebook which nobody saw suddenly the world changes.
    - logicallee 10y ago
      As a member of the public believe it or not I don't actually benefit from every invention scrawled anywhere in some notebook. I do benefit from having a precision component in my mouse that cost its manufacturer pennies. Which is the end game of the patent process. So it's just not a great example. Overturned or not, the public has come out very strongly ahead.
      - Retric 10y ago
        What did you gain? Remember the chain of people leading to your mouse had nothing to do with this guy as he did not disclose his idea before people started making lasers.
        logicallee 10y ago
        I gained the laser. There are lots of ideas in notebooks all over the world that I have zero access to. Their inventors don't know about or use the patent system. They have no incentive to prototype, research, and publish their findings, license them to manufacturing partners, or go through the tens of thousands of steps that the laser went through to become a component that costs pennies, available to everyone in a variety of applications. Sketches in notebooks don't help me. Inventors going through the patent process do. It's that simple.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  But note the law has changed, in fact been flipped on its head, now. It's first to the patent office now, regardless of who created the invention; and defensive publication is almost impossible thanks to a recent decision that most practioners have to be aware of an invention for it to be prior general art.

Retric 10y ago

"Finally, in 1987, Patlex won its first decisive enforcement victory, against Control Laser corporation, a manufacturer of lasers.[29] Rather than be bankrupted by the damages and the lack of a license to the technology, the board of Control Laser turned ownership of the company over to Patlex in a settlement deal" I am not sure that's working as intended in any way shape or form, considering the invention was "Gould's name for the device was first introduced to the public in a conference presentation in 1959"

logicallee 10y ago
oh I see, by "indefinitely", where you wrote, >it's easy for a cluster of bad patents to block progress indefinitely you meant like from 1959 to 1987. Sure is indefinitely. Imagine, if the world had ENDED in 1988 or 1989, then the world never would have gotten a patent-free laser. /s - nothing else to reply to you. get some perspective before throwing words like indefinitely around. I remember when I was 12 I thought like 4 years ago was an eternity ago, I poo-poo'd books published more than 2 or at the most 3 years ago and I thought everything was instantly out of date. turns out societies actually operate on a different timescale from 12 year-olds. but otherwise everything you wrote makes sense. and if the world were to end in the next 24 months, then a lot of patent-encumbered technologies simply will NEVER be brought to market by certain companies, due to patents and patents alone. I absolutely do believe that. The only thing is that I plan on the world existing longer than this time-frame - but if not, you're totally right and a lot of technology is being held back. only time will tell which of us is right.
- Retric 10y ago
  Gould was issued U.S. Patent 4,161,436 in 1979, covering a variety of laser applications including heating and vaporizing materials, welding, drilling, cutting, measuring distance, communication systems, television, laser photocopiers and other photochemical applications, and laser fusion.[25] So 1979 + 20 = 1999 - 1959 = 40 years which is twice the nominal 20 year patent terms. Critically the original patent was overturned based on a private notebook from 1957. So, the public gained NOTHING from these patents because someone else had already published and others where actually creating the product and bringing it to market, but no based on a notebook which nobody saw suddenly the world changes.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    As a member of the public believe it or not I don't actually benefit from every invention scrawled anywhere in some notebook. I do benefit from having a precision component in my mouse that cost its manufacturer pennies. Which is the end game of the patent process. So it's just not a great example. Overturned or not, the public has come out very strongly ahead.
    - Retric 10y ago
      What did you gain? Remember the chain of people leading to your mouse had nothing to do with this guy as he did not disclose his idea before people started making lasers.
      - logicallee 10y ago
        I gained the laser. There are lots of ideas in notebooks all over the world that I have zero access to. Their inventors don't know about or use the patent system. They have no incentive to prototype, research, and publish their findings, license them to manufacturing partners, or go through the tens of thousands of steps that the laser went through to become a component that costs pennies, available to everyone in a variety of applications. Sketches in notebooks don't help me. Inventors going through the patent process do. It's that simple.
Nomentatus 10y ago
But note the law has changed, in fact been flipped on its head, now. It's first to the patent office now, regardless of who created the invention; and defensive publication is almost impossible thanks to a recent decision that most practioners have to be aware of an invention for it to be prior general art.