4 ms·

> The public benefit of a patent is that the information is public [..] > The cost to the public of patents are that such use must be deferred But who does thi

> The public benefit of a patent is that the information is public [..] > The cost to the public of patents are that such use must be deferred But who does this benefit? The author points out that it benefits big/old ("stagnant") corporations rather than innovators. And that still holds, no? Here's a thought experiment: if you're a small innovator and you invent something new (let's be evil: a software algorithm), what benefit does disclosure bring you? It's better to keep it secret, because big/old ("stagnant") companies will find legal loopholes in your patent application to work around it. Or, they will run it in the cloud and not tell you at all that they're running your exact algorithm. The innovator would never know. Big/old ("stagnant") companies, on the other hand, have enough legal manpower to sue you out of existence regardless of whether their patent is valid or not. It's not the patent, it's the legal process that will bankrupt the small innovator. Can patents be molded to protect the small innovator? Because isn't that the intent? Regardless of whether that protection results in monopoly, disclosure or both.

ChrisLomont 8y ago
>Can patents be molded to protect the small innovator? There's plenty of cases of a small or lone inventor making big companies pay for infringing a patent. I think patents are about the only protection for a small innovator to get enough leverage to enter a market. As a small innovator myself, at probably every pitch I've ever made to investors, I've been asked immediately if I have patents. When I've looked at Chinese manufacturing for products, the first thing they ask is about patents (un-patented means they can copy and sell in a lot of markets, patented makes it harder for them to sell in markets where I have a patent). There's also plenty of people that are skilled at invention, that don't work for a big mega-corp, and they make their living by being able to stop big corporations from simply stealing their product ideas and crushing them via bigger and better distribution networks. Patenting a key aspect of a new item gets small players a seat at the negotiating table where a big player has to buy the product. Without patents this would rarely happen.

ChrisLomont 8y ago

>Can patents be molded to protect the small innovator? There's plenty of cases of a small or lone inventor making big companies pay for infringing a patent. I think patents are about the only protection for a small innovator to get enough leverage to enter a market. As a small innovator myself, at probably every pitch I've ever made to investors, I've been asked immediately if I have patents. When I've looked at Chinese manufacturing for products, the first thing they ask is about patents (un-patented means they can copy and sell in a lot of markets, patented makes it harder for them to sell in markets where I have a patent). There's also plenty of people that are skilled at invention, that don't work for a big mega-corp, and they make their living by being able to stop big corporations from simply stealing their product ideas and crushing them via bigger and better distribution networks. Patenting a key aspect of a new item gets small players a seat at the negotiating table where a big player has to buy the product. Without patents this would rarely happen.