4 ms·

I think its the other way around: When you are a millionaire you probably don't care much about patents, because you can afford to pay for the license.

by JepZ 9y ago

Cyph0n 9y ago
True, but I was looking at it from the point of view of publishing patents to guarantee a source of income.
- criddell 9y ago
  Unless you are prepared to start suing other developers like yourself or sell to a patent troll, there really is no path to income, is there?
  - gnicholas 9y ago
    You don't have to sue people if they recognize that you invented and patented something. I've licensed patented tech to folks who range from solo devs to large nonprofits, and discussions never veered toward litigation at any point. I think it depends a lot on what you've created and whether your patents are likely to stand up.
  - Cyph0n 9y ago
    You can make money by either licensing the patent or selling it. Large companies are usually prepared to buy out your patents if they think the tech is worth it.
cookiecaper 9y ago
Quite the contrary. The millionaire knows he can take any idea he wants from a young upstart if it's not patented. He can hire more people, spend more money marketing his clone, get the big PR firm working for him, and relegate the true innovator to a historical footnote (at best). If there's a patent, the force of law can be leveraged by the upstart to protect himself from such incursions, at least theoretically, and it requires expensive, tedious effort for the millionaire to circumvent the patent and/or defend himself against claims that he has infringed. Even if most inventors aren't going to pursue this course, the fact that the possibility exists is a deterrent. Patents are not necessarily done well, but like many systems that have been co-opted by large corporate interests, they exist precisely to prevent such exploitation. Software people must understand that software is not very hard or expensive to replicate. You don't get acquired because your software is good. You get acquired because you have a brand, an audience, a trademark, or a patent. There has to be some asset that the prospective acquirer cannot easily recreate by throwing 3-5 coders into a dark closet for a year or two (this costs around $1M / yr, much cheaper than any newsworthy acquisition). So yeah, millionaires are likely to be very irritated that there's a patent that may force them to compensate the original innovator, or worse, buy their company entirely.

I think its the other way around: When you are a millionaire you probably don't care much about patents, because you can afford to pay for the license.

by JepZ 9y ago

I think its the other way around: When you are a millionaire you probably don't care much about patents, because you can afford to pay for the license.

Cyph0n 9y ago

True, but I was looking at it from the point of view of publishing patents to guarantee a source of income.

criddell 9y ago
Unless you are prepared to start suing other developers like yourself or sell to a patent troll, there really is no path to income, is there?
- gnicholas 9y ago
  You don't have to sue people if they recognize that you invented and patented something. I've licensed patented tech to folks who range from solo devs to large nonprofits, and discussions never veered toward litigation at any point. I think it depends a lot on what you've created and whether your patents are likely to stand up.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  You can make money by either licensing the patent or selling it. Large companies are usually prepared to buy out your patents if they think the tech is worth it.

cookiecaper 9y ago

Quite the contrary. The millionaire knows he can take any idea he wants from a young upstart if it's not patented. He can hire more people, spend more money marketing his clone, get the big PR firm working for him, and relegate the true innovator to a historical footnote (at best). If there's a patent, the force of law can be leveraged by the upstart to protect himself from such incursions, at least theoretically, and it requires expensive, tedious effort for the millionaire to circumvent the patent and/or defend himself against claims that he has infringed. Even if most inventors aren't going to pursue this course, the fact that the possibility exists is a deterrent. Patents are not necessarily done well, but like many systems that have been co-opted by large corporate interests, they exist precisely to prevent such exploitation. Software people must understand that software is not very hard or expensive to replicate. You don't get acquired because your software is good. You get acquired because you have a brand, an audience, a trademark, or a patent. There has to be some asset that the prospective acquirer cannot easily recreate by throwing 3-5 coders into a dark closet for a year or two (this costs around $1M / yr, much cheaper than any newsworthy acquisition). So yeah, millionaires are likely to be very irritated that there's a patent that may force them to compensate the original innovator, or worse, buy their company entirely.