4 ms·

The worst case is that the money has to be repaid - how would insuring against that be prohibitive? If there's a 20% chance of invalidation, inventors take a 20

The worst case is that the money has to be repaid - how would insuring against that be prohibitive? If there's a 20% chance of invalidation, inventors take a 20% haircut. But the invalidation chance will not be uniform, and the risk assessment done by insurance companies will bring the right kind of market forces to bear against frivolous patents. And even aside from the economic impact, it's quite simply the right thing to do. If you shake people down with a government enforced monopoly that turns out to never have legitimately existed, keeping that money is immoral.

jacques_chester 9y ago
> The worst case is that the money has to be repaid - how would insuring against that be prohibitive? Because, under the proposal, those license fees can be recovered at any time. Forever. You will never be able to go uninsured for any patent you ever granted. As your life wears on, regardless of whether you need the insurance or not, your net value is wound down. Again, this means that only large companies will be willing to take the chance, because they can spread that risk across a portfolio and afford to defend it. A sole inventor cannot. They might obtain a patent, but under this scheme, they won't license it -- they'll just sell it. And it's just going to be to a large company, a patent broker or a patent troll. > If you shake people down with a government enforced monopoly that turns out to never have legitimately existed, keeping that money is immoral. I agree, and courts may be prepared to grant remedies in some cases. But my point is that it is also problematic to tilt the field still further against sole inventors. That increases the proportion of giant companies and patent trolls, which makes the net situation worse, not better.
- criddell 9y ago
  > those license fees can be recovered at any time. Forever. Forever is too long. It should only be for the life of the patent. That might be a nice incentive to open up the conversation to reducing the life of some patents.

jacques_chester 9y ago

> The worst case is that the money has to be repaid - how would insuring against that be prohibitive? Because, under the proposal, those license fees can be recovered at any time. Forever. You will never be able to go uninsured for any patent you ever granted. As your life wears on, regardless of whether you need the insurance or not, your net value is wound down. Again, this means that only large companies will be willing to take the chance, because they can spread that risk across a portfolio and afford to defend it. A sole inventor cannot. They might obtain a patent, but under this scheme, they won't license it -- they'll just sell it. And it's just going to be to a large company, a patent broker or a patent troll. > If you shake people down with a government enforced monopoly that turns out to never have legitimately existed, keeping that money is immoral. I agree, and courts may be prepared to grant remedies in some cases. But my point is that it is also problematic to tilt the field still further against sole inventors. That increases the proportion of giant companies and patent trolls, which makes the net situation worse, not better.

criddell 9y ago
> those license fees can be recovered at any time. Forever. Forever is too long. It should only be for the life of the patent. That might be a nice incentive to open up the conversation to reducing the life of some patents.