4 ms·

No, you're not a conspiracy theorist, that's exactly how the patent system works. Many companies who won't admit it in public are knowingly engaged in exactly t

No, you're not a conspiracy theorist, that's exactly how the patent system works. Many companies who won't admit it in public are knowingly engaged in exactly this practice. It's anti-competitive, it stinks, everyone knows it, and nothing is being done about it.

WilliamEdward 8y ago
Would the patent system be better and less trolly if you were legally required to produce whatever you patent?
- brianwawok 8y ago
  How many units? 1? 1000? Could IBM make 1000 drones with a coffee cup attached?
  - mars4rp 8y ago
    maybe at least a prototype and expires after 2 years if you haven't commercialized it!
    - joshuagross 8y ago
      They would play around with the definition of "commercialized". "Technically we offered it on sale for $500,000; nobody buys it so we've never made one, but it's still on the market!"
- Retra 8y ago
  No, that would ensure only people with the means to produce things could secure patent rights to their inventions.
- ryanmarsh 8y ago
  In the law we have the concept of "commercially reasonable efforts". Therefore we could in fact have a law which requires ongoing commercially reasonable efforts to manufacture and market the invention. This would empower a company who wanted the use a dormant/squatted patent with cause for action. In such a situation IBM would either have to make such an obvious go of it that nobody would waste the time attempting to prove a lack of commercially reasonable effort (subjectively interpreted by the courts), IBM could play act like they're making a reasonable effort and roll the dice in court, or relinquish the claim. In IBM's case, is producing 1,000 units just to prove commercially reasonable effort sufficient? The GOOD thing about the subjectivity of "commercially reasonable effort" in the law is that one could argue 1,000 units is not enough for a company with the resources of IBM.
lisper 8y ago
The hot mess that it the U.S. patent system is just a specific example of a much more general problem: a company benefits financially from a bad law, to the point where they make enough money that they can spend some of it to influence the political system to maintain this bad law and still turn a net profit. This positive feedback loop keeps the bad low in place despite the fact that it only benefits this one company. The Citizen United decision has made this problem that much worse.

WilliamEdward 8y ago

Would the patent system be better and less trolly if you were legally required to produce whatever you patent?

brianwawok 8y ago
How many units? 1? 1000? Could IBM make 1000 drones with a coffee cup attached?
- mars4rp 8y ago
  maybe at least a prototype and expires after 2 years if you haven't commercialized it!
  - joshuagross 8y ago
    They would play around with the definition of "commercialized". "Technically we offered it on sale for $500,000; nobody buys it so we've never made one, but it's still on the market!"
Retra 8y ago
No, that would ensure only people with the means to produce things could secure patent rights to their inventions.
ryanmarsh 8y ago
In the law we have the concept of "commercially reasonable efforts". Therefore we could in fact have a law which requires ongoing commercially reasonable efforts to manufacture and market the invention. This would empower a company who wanted the use a dormant/squatted patent with cause for action. In such a situation IBM would either have to make such an obvious go of it that nobody would waste the time attempting to prove a lack of commercially reasonable effort (subjectively interpreted by the courts), IBM could play act like they're making a reasonable effort and roll the dice in court, or relinquish the claim. In IBM's case, is producing 1,000 units just to prove commercially reasonable effort sufficient? The GOOD thing about the subjectivity of "commercially reasonable effort" in the law is that one could argue 1,000 units is not enough for a company with the resources of IBM.

lisper 8y ago

The hot mess that it the U.S. patent system is just a specific example of a much more general problem: a company benefits financially from a bad law, to the point where they make enough money that they can spend some of it to influence the political system to maintain this bad law and still turn a net profit. This positive feedback loop keeps the bad low in place despite the fact that it only benefits this one company. The Citizen United decision has made this problem that much worse.