3 ms·

I'm not strictly opposed to software patents, I do think that the threshold for what deserves a patent is far too low in the USA though. Regardless, patents in

I'm not strictly opposed to software patents, I do think that the threshold for what deserves a patent is far too low in the USA though. Regardless, patents in general are a net good for mankind. It incentivises innovation, as the inventor gets a monopoly for a limited time on new inventions. What's the point in inventing anything if some other company (likely with more resources than you) can just come along and steal your ideas?

I_am_tiberius 9y ago
> I do think that the threshold for what deserves a patent is far too low in the USA though. A first big step forward would be to increase the threshold. The current situation is ridiculous, - I think everyone agrees on that. > Regardless, patents in general are a net good for mankind. It incentivises innovation, as the inventor gets a monopoly for a limited time on new inventions. I cannot entirely disagree on that, - at least from today's perspective. However, what did people think about open source software 30 years ago? They would have said something similar as you did, - which is that companies would not have the motivation to invest time and money. What do people think today?
- jjeaff 9y ago
  Open source is not necessarily a profitable endeavour. Their are some exceptions, but presumably there would be a lot more open source options out there if it were more profitable.
trophycase 9y ago
Chefs and restaurants don't file patents on recipes AFAIK and they still manage. Didi basically copied Uber and the tech is still far inferior
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  You're comparing apples and oranges. Imagine this case now: I own a small company, Foo & Sons. I invent a new form of widget, that's 10% more efficient than other widgets. I can patent my new widget, and now I have exclusive right to manufacture these widgets in my factory for $1 a piece, selling them for $2 a piece. Now, a big company, Widgets'R'Us, is capable of manufacturing these widgets for $0.50 each, as they have economies of scale. Without patent protection, they could make my widgets, and sell them for $1.50 each, putting me out of business. However, because of the patent, they'd have to pay me a fee if they wanted to make my widgets. I can now decide whether or not these royalties are more valuable tham making and selling widgets from my factory.
  - trophycase 9y ago
    I guess I might have been overly broad in my comment. I guess I just wanted to point out cases where a patent feels ridiculous because the process is sufficiently difficult to replicate (e.g. cooking a recipe or doing a stand-up routine). Furthermore, the process in question needs to have sufficient demand such that an economy of scale actually has incentive to produce this product at large volumes. I think there is a stronger case for patents for processes that can be easily replicated, reverse engineered, and made profitably at scale (this is a key factor IMO), like lightbulbs or batteries or something. Even then though, I think there are cases to be made that patents still may not provide benefit. For example, why do people still buy Advil or Tylenol over a generic brand, is it perhaps trust in the brand and confidence in the purity and safety of the product?

I_am_tiberius 9y ago

> I do think that the threshold for what deserves a patent is far too low in the USA though. A first big step forward would be to increase the threshold. The current situation is ridiculous, - I think everyone agrees on that. > Regardless, patents in general are a net good for mankind. It incentivises innovation, as the inventor gets a monopoly for a limited time on new inventions. I cannot entirely disagree on that, - at least from today's perspective. However, what did people think about open source software 30 years ago? They would have said something similar as you did, - which is that companies would not have the motivation to invest time and money. What do people think today?

jjeaff 9y ago
Open source is not necessarily a profitable endeavour. Their are some exceptions, but presumably there would be a lot more open source options out there if it were more profitable.

trophycase 9y ago

Chefs and restaurants don't file patents on recipes AFAIK and they still manage. Didi basically copied Uber and the tech is still far inferior

toomanybeersies 9y ago
You're comparing apples and oranges. Imagine this case now: I own a small company, Foo & Sons. I invent a new form of widget, that's 10% more efficient than other widgets. I can patent my new widget, and now I have exclusive right to manufacture these widgets in my factory for $1 a piece, selling them for $2 a piece. Now, a big company, Widgets'R'Us, is capable of manufacturing these widgets for $0.50 each, as they have economies of scale. Without patent protection, they could make my widgets, and sell them for $1.50 each, putting me out of business. However, because of the patent, they'd have to pay me a fee if they wanted to make my widgets. I can now decide whether or not these royalties are more valuable tham making and selling widgets from my factory.
- trophycase 9y ago
  I guess I might have been overly broad in my comment. I guess I just wanted to point out cases where a patent feels ridiculous because the process is sufficiently difficult to replicate (e.g. cooking a recipe or doing a stand-up routine). Furthermore, the process in question needs to have sufficient demand such that an economy of scale actually has incentive to produce this product at large volumes. I think there is a stronger case for patents for processes that can be easily replicated, reverse engineered, and made profitably at scale (this is a key factor IMO), like lightbulbs or batteries or something. Even then though, I think there are cases to be made that patents still may not provide benefit. For example, why do people still buy Advil or Tylenol over a generic brand, is it perhaps trust in the brand and confidence in the purity and safety of the product?