4 ms·

Well, one could argue that this is how competition works. If someone else can manufacture the same thing at lower cost, they deserve the market advantage. Of c

Well, one could argue that this is how competition works. If someone else can manufacture the same thing at lower cost, they deserve the market advantage. Of course, this idea doesn't give credit to the inventors and benefits copycats. I just wanted to mention the idea.

tempay 9y ago
It depends if they can manufacture it at a lower cost or if they can just sell it at lower price as they don't have subsidise the time spent doing research and development. Not to mention subsidising past projects that didn't come to fruition.
nhaehnle 9y ago
You haven't really addressed gh02t's point. The original (professed) intent of patents was to protect individual inventors. If some other manufacturer finds a cheaper way to manufacture the same thing, they can get a patent on their improvement, and push for some licensing deal once they have that. (This doesn't change the fact that the modern de facto practice of patents is pretty messed up. I'm just saying that there's a good idea behind it.)
tacostakohashi 9y ago
If someone else can manufacture the same thing at lower cost, then the inventor / patent holder is going to want to outsource their production to the lowest cost producer. The lowest cost producer does indeed enjoy a market advantage in the market for manufacturing.
- gh02t 9y ago
  Want to, sure. But you usually sign a contract, you can't just change.
mschuster91 9y ago
> Of course, this idea doesn't give credit to the inventors and benefits copycats. Well, let's take medicine with its huge R&D upfront cost as an example. Of course, given the recipe, the ingredients and the neccessary equipment, anyone can produce a medicine for dead cheap compared to the inventor, as they don't have to invest in R&D beforehand while the original inventor has to recoup the R&D cost and therefore has to call a price with significant markup over the manufacturing cost.
gh02t 9y ago
I disagree. I'm talking about an inventor talking to a manufacturer (or engineering firm), the manufacturer saying "thanks for the idea, don't mind if we do" and then ripping the inventor off and not sharing the profit. That's not competition and it's not good for inventors, because sharing your idea is inherently part of the process of taking it to market. IMO, fair competition comes into play after the inventor has developed their product into something ready for production, otherwise the incentive to invent will disappear. Whether they then deserve a temporary monopoly to recover their development costs is up for debate I guess, but I'm talking about shielding inventors from getting robbed of their ideas.

tempay 9y ago

It depends if they can manufacture it at a lower cost or if they can just sell it at lower price as they don't have subsidise the time spent doing research and development. Not to mention subsidising past projects that didn't come to fruition.

nhaehnle 9y ago

You haven't really addressed gh02t's point. The original (professed) intent of patents was to protect individual inventors. If some other manufacturer finds a cheaper way to manufacture the same thing, they can get a patent on their improvement, and push for some licensing deal once they have that. (This doesn't change the fact that the modern de facto practice of patents is pretty messed up. I'm just saying that there's a good idea behind it.)

tacostakohashi 9y ago

If someone else can manufacture the same thing at lower cost, then the inventor / patent holder is going to want to outsource their production to the lowest cost producer. The lowest cost producer does indeed enjoy a market advantage in the market for manufacturing.

gh02t 9y ago
Want to, sure. But you usually sign a contract, you can't just change.

mschuster91 9y ago

> Of course, this idea doesn't give credit to the inventors and benefits copycats. Well, let's take medicine with its huge R&D upfront cost as an example. Of course, given the recipe, the ingredients and the neccessary equipment, anyone can produce a medicine for dead cheap compared to the inventor, as they don't have to invest in R&D beforehand while the original inventor has to recoup the R&D cost and therefore has to call a price with significant markup over the manufacturing cost.

gh02t 9y ago

I disagree. I'm talking about an inventor talking to a manufacturer (or engineering firm), the manufacturer saying "thanks for the idea, don't mind if we do" and then ripping the inventor off and not sharing the profit. That's not competition and it's not good for inventors, because sharing your idea is inherently part of the process of taking it to market. IMO, fair competition comes into play after the inventor has developed their product into something ready for production, otherwise the incentive to invent will disappear. Whether they then deserve a temporary monopoly to recover their development costs is up for debate I guess, but I'm talking about shielding inventors from getting robbed of their ideas.