4 ms·

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 i

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eternity ago, I poo-poo'd books published more than 2 or at the most 3 years ago and I thought everything was instantly out of date.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.
      - Retric 10y ago
        But the guy who got the patent was the guy with the notebook who never showed it to anyone. Then when someone else got it to market he showed the patent office his notebook and then got a lot of money. Note: We changed to a first to file in part to avoid this issue. But, now someone else can publish or even sell something, then after reading it you can submit a patent using their idea which is arguably far worse.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        logicallee 10y ago
        :)

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.
    - Retric 10y ago
      But the guy who got the patent was the guy with the notebook who never showed it to anyone. Then when someone else got it to market he showed the patent office his notebook and then got a lot of money. Note: We changed to a first to file in part to avoid this issue. But, now someone else can publish or even sell something, then after reading it you can submit a patent using their idea which is arguably far worse.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - logicallee 10y ago
        :)