8 ms·

Not that this would be an efficient use of anyone's time but... Assuming the purpose of patents is 1) to eliminate trade secrets, 2) that patents must be novel

by wtdo 8y ago

Not that this would be an efficient use of anyone's time but... Assuming the purpose of patents is 1) to eliminate trade secrets, 2) that patents must be novel, and 3) that patents must be non-obvious to someone skilled in the art, then perhaps a solution would be: take a handful of people skilled in the art, tell half of them to implement the patent and tell the other half only the end goal and see if any of them come up with the same process. The first group would help to see if the patent is written well enough. If they can't implement it then your patent is automatically rejected. If anyone from the second group comes up with the same process, then that's an automatic patent rejection. Even if they don't, it's still helpful information for the patent examiner. For example, if they can solve the problem, just not in the same way as the patent application proposes, perhaps the patent examiner will see that the patent isn't necessary. Go ahead and have your trade secret, the public can obviously solve that problem with or without that knowledge.

jpadkins 8y ago
the costs of your system are probably way more than the value created for society via patents.
- AmIFirstToThink 8y ago
  The cost of creating artificial exclusivity, enforced by the state against natural human learning/discovering capabilities, is even higher.
  - pnw_hazor 8y ago
    Patents cover stuff that is already invented and put into public use. How does that go against natural learning/discovery? Patents may stop someone from on purpose or accidentally copying someone else invention, but that isn't stopping discovery.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      People spend resources trying to discover things because they want to use them. If it turns out that when you go to use your invention, a patent troll jumps out from under the bridge to shake you down, people will be less inclined to spend resources trying to invent new things to use and instead just stick to the status quo.
    - dahauns 8y ago
      This makes sense when the price for discovery itself is very high compared to putting it into use. In many fields (especially IT/software/algorithms), the discovery/invention often isn't the main part of work (especially not when you look at what are the actual claims of many inventions in those fields), but creating a good implementation and/or improving on it. There's a reason that software and algorithms weren't deemed patentable for a long time (and still aren't in certain jurisdictions - at least on paper).
    - AmIFirstToThink 8y ago
      >How does that go against natural learning/discovery? Territorial claims, artificially created and maintained at tax-payer expense. Most patents are straight forward implementations that people would have come up with on their own. Patent system gives first mover advantage to those filing the claim with patent office. They have started now to give preference to those who file first, over those who can show they invented it first. Goes to show the intention of the system, create an unnatural monetized system over what comes naturally to people... solving their problem with what they know and what they can learn and what they can come up with. If one person solves a problem and files a patent, then in the IntellectualProperty land grab, it doesn't matter how easy the solution was, that person is now entitled to ask for money from anyone else who faces the same problem. The wheel, the canals, the sewer system, the river wheel it all spread without patent system. The patent system should come up with a "senior year graduate" challenge. If the kids in final year of college in that field can come up with similar solution comparable to the patent filing, then the patent is invalidated for being obvious. Amazon 'one-click' wouldn't ever have become a patent with this, as it was obvious use of browser cookies. True invention should be rewarded, not chance occurrence of you coming face to face with a problem before anyone else.
- wtdo 8y ago
  I agree. I probably should have stressed that more in the initial disclaimer. It is possible (though, again, unlikely) that it might not be as bad as it initially sounds simply due to fewer bad patents being submitted if the submitter knows the patent application would go through such an extensive process. There'd be a lot fewer vague patent applications and a lot fewer applications for stuff that's obvious. I generally feel that the cost of patents isn't worth the value they've created. Once one factors in the costs of lawsuits over stupid/obvious patents, patent trolls, the cost of patent attorneys, the increased cost of goods due to patents, etc, etc, the value of patents generally shrinks considerably. Being sure only good patents get through could go some way to increasing the value of patents to society, and thus might be worth the extra cost. Then again, I'd rather patents just be dumped unceremoniously.
  - ggg9990 8y ago
    If patents are ended, that’s pretty much the end of >95% of small-molecule pharmaceuticals.
- rayiner 8y ago
  That may be true, but I suspect you're underestimating the value created by patents. Three examples: 1) Patents enable "benevolent monopolies." Companies that can afford to splurge on fundamental research because they have a revenue source protected by some sort of barrier to entry or network effect. Xerox PARC, for example, created many of the technologies fundamental to modern computing. PARC was bankrolled by Xerox's near-monopoly on copiers, which was enabled by Xerox's patents. PARC's decline closely tracks what happened after the 1975 consent decree in which Xerox was forced to license its patents to Japanese competitors. 2) Patents enable business models that separate design from production. ARM and MIPS, for example, design chips incorporated into designs from myriad manufacturers. How much value has been enabled by proliferation of these IP cores? You may point to things like RISC V, but that only proves the point. RISC V followed 15 years after the first ARM licenses, and has a fraction of the capital backing it. It's a lot harder to raise capital to build designs with the idea that you're going to give away the work product for free. 3) Patents enable technology sharing. Dozens of different companies have technology that is included in DVD, Blu-Ray, 2G/3G/4G, Wi-Fi, etc. Companies contribute the results of very expensive R&D efforts to these openly-published standards because they can ensure they get a cut of the value created by that technology. If they could not, there would be strong incentives to keep that technology secret instead. You might point to the success of web standards in the absence of patent protections. I'd posit that the web is the exception not the rule, and it's an exception that exists because of how easily the web can be monetized with advertising. That monetization strategy is not widely applicable.
  - slrz 8y ago
    > 2) Patents enable business models that separate design from production. ARM and MIPS, for example, design chips incorporated into designs from myriad manufacturers. Their designs are already protected by copyright, though.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      That only protects against literal copying. That’s useful where the expensive part of your R&D is laying out the gates, but not if the expensive part is figuring out how the gates should be laid out to achieve particular results.
- Retric 8y ago
  Drug patents on their own represent a 1 Trillion dollar industry world wide. So, I doubt that's true. Really the patent office could spend 100 billion per year and still be a net gain for society. The problem seems to be many people have a lot to gain from a broken patent system, and most people don't care.
  - marcosdumay 8y ago
    It's not exactly clear if patents help or harm the drug industry. It's clear they play some very important roles, and the entire industry is structured around them. So, I sympathize with people that think it's too risky to change them. But I can't agree with that certainty on your comment.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Drugs are trivial to reverse engineer vs develop. So, without patents their would be zero incentive for private drug R&D funding. It's very clear that patents are required by the drug industry before they will invest in Research or as often happens buy companies that have done research. Now, if we give up all private R&D we could still manufacture existing drugs at much lower prices. But, turning over all drug research to non for profits and governments is a very steep price to pay. PS: Ok their are some game theory based approaches where small countries could benefit from abolishing drug patents while benefiting from other countries research. But, that does not scale worldwide.
      - toasterlovin 8y ago
        FWIW, we will probably need to figure out an effective way to fund non-commercial drug research anyway, since pharmaceutical companies are really only interested in certain classes of drugs (mostly drugs that treat symptoms of chronic conditions, rather than drugs which permanently solve diseases or drugs which treat short lived conditions).
        notlob 8y ago
- amelius 8y ago
  > the costs of your system are probably way more than the value created for society via patents Also in the case of MPEG?
dnautics 8y ago
What's the incentive on the first group to not just say oh it didn't work and then do their own implementation later?
- gowld 8y ago
  Ban those people from doing that. Now I'm curious if patent officers have ever been fired, sued, or prosecuted for profiting from the information in a rejected or granted patent.
  - dnautics 8y ago
    How do you prove that's been done? You have to hire even more experts to review the reviewers, it's experts all the way down!!

by wtdo 8y ago

jpadkins 8y ago

the costs of your system are probably way more than the value created for society via patents.

AmIFirstToThink 8y ago
The cost of creating artificial exclusivity, enforced by the state against natural human learning/discovering capabilities, is even higher.
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  Patents cover stuff that is already invented and put into public use. How does that go against natural learning/discovery? Patents may stop someone from on purpose or accidentally copying someone else invention, but that isn't stopping discovery.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    People spend resources trying to discover things because they want to use them. If it turns out that when you go to use your invention, a patent troll jumps out from under the bridge to shake you down, people will be less inclined to spend resources trying to invent new things to use and instead just stick to the status quo.
  - dahauns 8y ago
    This makes sense when the price for discovery itself is very high compared to putting it into use. In many fields (especially IT/software/algorithms), the discovery/invention often isn't the main part of work (especially not when you look at what are the actual claims of many inventions in those fields), but creating a good implementation and/or improving on it. There's a reason that software and algorithms weren't deemed patentable for a long time (and still aren't in certain jurisdictions - at least on paper).
  - AmIFirstToThink 8y ago
    >How does that go against natural learning/discovery? Territorial claims, artificially created and maintained at tax-payer expense. Most patents are straight forward implementations that people would have come up with on their own. Patent system gives first mover advantage to those filing the claim with patent office. They have started now to give preference to those who file first, over those who can show they invented it first. Goes to show the intention of the system, create an unnatural monetized system over what comes naturally to people... solving their problem with what they know and what they can learn and what they can come up with. If one person solves a problem and files a patent, then in the IntellectualProperty land grab, it doesn't matter how easy the solution was, that person is now entitled to ask for money from anyone else who faces the same problem. The wheel, the canals, the sewer system, the river wheel it all spread without patent system. The patent system should come up with a "senior year graduate" challenge. If the kids in final year of college in that field can come up with similar solution comparable to the patent filing, then the patent is invalidated for being obvious. Amazon 'one-click' wouldn't ever have become a patent with this, as it was obvious use of browser cookies. True invention should be rewarded, not chance occurrence of you coming face to face with a problem before anyone else.
wtdo 8y ago
I agree. I probably should have stressed that more in the initial disclaimer. It is possible (though, again, unlikely) that it might not be as bad as it initially sounds simply due to fewer bad patents being submitted if the submitter knows the patent application would go through such an extensive process. There'd be a lot fewer vague patent applications and a lot fewer applications for stuff that's obvious. I generally feel that the cost of patents isn't worth the value they've created. Once one factors in the costs of lawsuits over stupid/obvious patents, patent trolls, the cost of patent attorneys, the increased cost of goods due to patents, etc, etc, the value of patents generally shrinks considerably. Being sure only good patents get through could go some way to increasing the value of patents to society, and thus might be worth the extra cost. Then again, I'd rather patents just be dumped unceremoniously.
- ggg9990 8y ago
  If patents are ended, that’s pretty much the end of >95% of small-molecule pharmaceuticals.
rayiner 8y ago
That may be true, but I suspect you're underestimating the value created by patents. Three examples: 1) Patents enable "benevolent monopolies." Companies that can afford to splurge on fundamental research because they have a revenue source protected by some sort of barrier to entry or network effect. Xerox PARC, for example, created many of the technologies fundamental to modern computing. PARC was bankrolled by Xerox's near-monopoly on copiers, which was enabled by Xerox's patents. PARC's decline closely tracks what happened after the 1975 consent decree in which Xerox was forced to license its patents to Japanese competitors. 2) Patents enable business models that separate design from production. ARM and MIPS, for example, design chips incorporated into designs from myriad manufacturers. How much value has been enabled by proliferation of these IP cores? You may point to things like RISC V, but that only proves the point. RISC V followed 15 years after the first ARM licenses, and has a fraction of the capital backing it. It's a lot harder to raise capital to build designs with the idea that you're going to give away the work product for free. 3) Patents enable technology sharing. Dozens of different companies have technology that is included in DVD, Blu-Ray, 2G/3G/4G, Wi-Fi, etc. Companies contribute the results of very expensive R&D efforts to these openly-published standards because they can ensure they get a cut of the value created by that technology. If they could not, there would be strong incentives to keep that technology secret instead. You might point to the success of web standards in the absence of patent protections. I'd posit that the web is the exception not the rule, and it's an exception that exists because of how easily the web can be monetized with advertising. That monetization strategy is not widely applicable.
- slrz 8y ago
  > 2) Patents enable business models that separate design from production. ARM and MIPS, for example, design chips incorporated into designs from myriad manufacturers. Their designs are already protected by copyright, though.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    That only protects against literal copying. That’s useful where the expensive part of your R&D is laying out the gates, but not if the expensive part is figuring out how the gates should be laid out to achieve particular results.
Retric 8y ago
Drug patents on their own represent a 1 Trillion dollar industry world wide. So, I doubt that's true. Really the patent office could spend 100 billion per year and still be a net gain for society. The problem seems to be many people have a lot to gain from a broken patent system, and most people don't care.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  It's not exactly clear if patents help or harm the drug industry. It's clear they play some very important roles, and the entire industry is structured around them. So, I sympathize with people that think it's too risky to change them. But I can't agree with that certainty on your comment.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Drugs are trivial to reverse engineer vs develop. So, without patents their would be zero incentive for private drug R&D funding. It's very clear that patents are required by the drug industry before they will invest in Research or as often happens buy companies that have done research. Now, if we give up all private R&D we could still manufacture existing drugs at much lower prices. But, turning over all drug research to non for profits and governments is a very steep price to pay. PS: Ok their are some game theory based approaches where small countries could benefit from abolishing drug patents while benefiting from other countries research. But, that does not scale worldwide.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      FWIW, we will probably need to figure out an effective way to fund non-commercial drug research anyway, since pharmaceutical companies are really only interested in certain classes of drugs (mostly drugs that treat symptoms of chronic conditions, rather than drugs which permanently solve diseases or drugs which treat short lived conditions).
      - notlob 8y ago
amelius 8y ago
> the costs of your system are probably way more than the value created for society via patents Also in the case of MPEG?

dnautics 8y ago

What's the incentive on the first group to not just say oh it didn't work and then do their own implementation later?

gowld 8y ago
Ban those people from doing that. Now I'm curious if patent officers have ever been fired, sued, or prosecuted for profiting from the information in a rejected or granted patent.
- dnautics 8y ago
  How do you prove that's been done? You have to hire even more experts to review the reviewers, it's experts all the way down!!