5 ms·

On the other hand its common for people to inherit property they can't maintain, forcing them to sell it with much regret. If a poor person patented tremendousl

On the other hand its common for people to inherit property they can't maintain, forcing them to sell it with much regret. If a poor person patented tremendously valuable intellectual property it might be lost to an unscrupulous buyer.

pjc50 9y ago
> If a poor person patented tremendously valuable intellectual property Challenge for HN: find the most recent three patents which (a) were filed by individuals not an employer (b) those individuals could reasonably be described as poor (c) aren't subject to widespread infringement by a big company. (and (d) is for something actually useful not a perpetual motion machine etc) I think it might be quite a hard thing to find.
- Someone 9y ago
  a) is (technically) easily satisfied. In the USA, only persons can apply for a patent. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents#heading-10 https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-inform...: ”According to the law, the inventor, or a person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention, may apply for a patent, with certain exceptions.” and, more explicitly, http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/applicant/ http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/applicant/: ”When someone makes an invention, and does so as an employee of a company, usually the company owns the right to apply for a patent. The exception once again is the United States, where only natural persons may apply for a patent. In the USA, the employee will typically have a clause in his employment contract stating that he assigns all his patent rights to the company. The filing is then done on behalf of the employee, but the rights immediately go to the company.”
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    This reverses the meaning of the question. When last did a poor person get to the patent office first and then retain the rights themselves to critical tech. Patent law as it is explains much of the 6-fold increase in inequality in the US in the last few decades. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/our-biggest-economic-social-political-issue-two-economies-ray-dalio?articleId=6327163206116667393 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/our-biggest-economic-social-p... PS Employees aren't generally amongst the poor.
jackhack 9y ago
Physical property -- yes. It is expensive to maintain a building, or an antique vehicle, for instance. A valuable oil painting requires climate controlled storage. Gems and paper money must be held securely. But Intellectual property is a different animal. It may require upkeep in the form of legal defense on infringement but I'm not aware of anything else. But should that prove too costly, and were it sold in the scenario you've painted, it would at least go to someone who considers it valuable and desirable rather than languish, unused. All a bit of a hypothetical strawman though.

pjc50 9y ago

> If a poor person patented tremendously valuable intellectual property Challenge for HN: find the most recent three patents which (a) were filed by individuals not an employer (b) those individuals could reasonably be described as poor (c) aren't subject to widespread infringement by a big company. (and (d) is for something actually useful not a perpetual motion machine etc) I think it might be quite a hard thing to find.

Someone 9y ago
a) is (technically) easily satisfied. In the USA, only persons can apply for a patent. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents#heading-10 https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-inform...: ”According to the law, the inventor, or a person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention, may apply for a patent, with certain exceptions.” and, more explicitly, http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/applicant/ http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/applicant/: ”When someone makes an invention, and does so as an employee of a company, usually the company owns the right to apply for a patent. The exception once again is the United States, where only natural persons may apply for a patent. In the USA, the employee will typically have a clause in his employment contract stating that he assigns all his patent rights to the company. The filing is then done on behalf of the employee, but the rights immediately go to the company.”
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  This reverses the meaning of the question. When last did a poor person get to the patent office first and then retain the rights themselves to critical tech. Patent law as it is explains much of the 6-fold increase in inequality in the US in the last few decades. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/our-biggest-economic-social-political-issue-two-economies-ray-dalio?articleId=6327163206116667393 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/our-biggest-economic-social-p... PS Employees aren't generally amongst the poor.

jackhack 9y ago

Physical property -- yes. It is expensive to maintain a building, or an antique vehicle, for instance. A valuable oil painting requires climate controlled storage. Gems and paper money must be held securely. But Intellectual property is a different animal. It may require upkeep in the form of legal defense on infringement but I'm not aware of anything else. But should that prove too costly, and were it sold in the scenario you've painted, it would at least go to someone who considers it valuable and desirable rather than languish, unused. All a bit of a hypothetical strawman though.