5 ms·

One problem with our patent system is that the patent duration of a multi billion dollar drug is the same as a trivial algorithm or design. Why not have 3,5,10,

One problem with our patent system is that the patent duration of a multi billion dollar drug is the same as a trivial algorithm or design. Why not have 3,5,10,15 year patents that reflect the complexity/sophistication and cost.

SamUK96 9y ago
This tier system would be gamed within seconds believe me.
- achamayou 9y ago
  You could at least charge substantially more for longer term patents, and use the money to fund looking into the validity of said patents properly. If filing long term bogus patents becomes sufficiently expensive and likely to be ultimately rejected, they'll probably become less common.
  - mars4rp 9y ago
    then big corporations with money will have an edge over smaller companies to file for more patents with longer terms. do you think Apple with $30B sitting in bank is going to save on patent cost?
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      The cost could be scaled further based on company size/net revenue/assets. So Apple's $30B nest egg would make it more expensive for them to file a long-term patent than a startup with $30 in the bank.
      - achamayou 9y ago
        Well that would get played for sure. Apple would start tiny wholly owned companies or buy special purpose startups with only patents etc.
        rdlecler1 9y ago
        That could be taken into consideration.
        darawk 9y ago
        Not reliably. International corporate ownership is very complex. And consider the following: Apple instructs one of its employees to quit and start a new company. That company files the patent and gets it approved for cheap. Apple buys the company the next day. It's very hard to create a system here that's not readily gameable.
        craftyguy 9y ago
        Patents need to be renewed when the entity that owns them no longer exists (e.g. acquired). If they are not renewed, then they expire and become public domain.
        ribosometronome 9y ago
        Tebahpla, Inc -- a small company with 3 employees a gross yearly income of ~450k files for a patent and gets it granted for 20 years. Tebahpla then licenses that patent only to Google, for 20 years, for $10 a year.
        craftyguy 9y ago
        damn, this is going to be harder than I thought.
    - achamayou 9y ago
      That’s already true now though. If the startup can take a cheap short patent and renew it later once they’ve made money, it doesn’t sound too bad to me.
digi_owl 9y ago
Software should not be patented at all. Math has not been patentable under any scheme until recently, where over a series of lawsuits the US courts have effectively made a subset of it (software) patentable. And it all started thanks to seeing a computer operated manufacturing process as something patentable over the same process done without a computer...
- eganist 9y ago
  I don't believe the math patentability rebuttal holds, otherwise it can be readily extended to the real world through assembly instructions for tangible inventions, especially with the advent of 3d printing. I'm not saying the patent system is bug-free, but I am saying it'll be a lot harder to drive the kind of innovation we're used to seeing here with no patent protection at all (copyright only protects the implementation, and trade secrets are things you don't share e.g. as client-side code). Full disclosure: I've got a few to my name. I don't think any of the inventors I know would've even bothered inventing the patterns they/we did if the protection didn't exist. Unpopular opinion, I'm certain.
  - eloff 9y ago
    3d printing makes a physical invention, patentable like any other. The manner of assembly is not relevant. Software is math and it shouldn't be patentable. I think very little good has come of that at all.
    - eganist 9y ago
      I'm sure I'm missing something, but where would the economic incentive to develop the majority of (specifically) client-side applications have come from especially in the era before the .com boom?
      - eloff 9y ago
        You still have copyright protecting your code. All a patent does is let you have a lot of time and money for an option to sue some types of companies trying to clone your idea. But companies are all about the execution. There's clones of every successful company, patents didn't change that. But most fail. It was easy to clone Facebook the website way back when or Snapchat the app. Good luck beating them at their own game though. For any startups here thinking patents are a good use of their time - think again.

SamUK96 9y ago

This tier system would be gamed within seconds believe me.

achamayou 9y ago
You could at least charge substantially more for longer term patents, and use the money to fund looking into the validity of said patents properly. If filing long term bogus patents becomes sufficiently expensive and likely to be ultimately rejected, they'll probably become less common.
- mars4rp 9y ago
  then big corporations with money will have an edge over smaller companies to file for more patents with longer terms. do you think Apple with $30B sitting in bank is going to save on patent cost?
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    The cost could be scaled further based on company size/net revenue/assets. So Apple's $30B nest egg would make it more expensive for them to file a long-term patent than a startup with $30 in the bank.
    - achamayou 9y ago
      Well that would get played for sure. Apple would start tiny wholly owned companies or buy special purpose startups with only patents etc.
      - rdlecler1 9y ago
        That could be taken into consideration.
        darawk 9y ago
        Not reliably. International corporate ownership is very complex. And consider the following: Apple instructs one of its employees to quit and start a new company. That company files the patent and gets it approved for cheap. Apple buys the company the next day. It's very hard to create a system here that's not readily gameable.
      - craftyguy 9y ago
        Patents need to be renewed when the entity that owns them no longer exists (e.g. acquired). If they are not renewed, then they expire and become public domain.
        ribosometronome 9y ago
        Tebahpla, Inc -- a small company with 3 employees a gross yearly income of ~450k files for a patent and gets it granted for 20 years. Tebahpla then licenses that patent only to Google, for 20 years, for $10 a year.
        craftyguy 9y ago
        damn, this is going to be harder than I thought.
  - achamayou 9y ago
    That’s already true now though. If the startup can take a cheap short patent and renew it later once they’ve made money, it doesn’t sound too bad to me.

digi_owl 9y ago

Software should not be patented at all. Math has not been patentable under any scheme until recently, where over a series of lawsuits the US courts have effectively made a subset of it (software) patentable. And it all started thanks to seeing a computer operated manufacturing process as something patentable over the same process done without a computer...

eganist 9y ago
I don't believe the math patentability rebuttal holds, otherwise it can be readily extended to the real world through assembly instructions for tangible inventions, especially with the advent of 3d printing. I'm not saying the patent system is bug-free, but I am saying it'll be a lot harder to drive the kind of innovation we're used to seeing here with no patent protection at all (copyright only protects the implementation, and trade secrets are things you don't share e.g. as client-side code). Full disclosure: I've got a few to my name. I don't think any of the inventors I know would've even bothered inventing the patterns they/we did if the protection didn't exist. Unpopular opinion, I'm certain.
- eloff 9y ago
  3d printing makes a physical invention, patentable like any other. The manner of assembly is not relevant. Software is math and it shouldn't be patentable. I think very little good has come of that at all.
  - eganist 9y ago
    I'm sure I'm missing something, but where would the economic incentive to develop the majority of (specifically) client-side applications have come from especially in the era before the .com boom?
    - eloff 9y ago
      You still have copyright protecting your code. All a patent does is let you have a lot of time and money for an option to sue some types of companies trying to clone your idea. But companies are all about the execution. There's clones of every successful company, patents didn't change that. But most fail. It was easy to clone Facebook the website way back when or Snapchat the app. Good luck beating them at their own game though. For any startups here thinking patents are a good use of their time - think again.