4 ms·

Good. It's not a useful business model for society.

by adamc 8y ago

jjeaff 8y ago
I think it's an excellent business model and even has the incentive to help and encourage small time inventors who do not otherwise have the budget or know-how to implement or protect something the invent. Otherwise, corporations with huge budgets are the only ones that benefit from the patent system. But this comes with a big "if". IF the patents were actually novel. IF the patent office was actually doing its job and enforcing its own rules that a patent should be for something novel and non-obvious to people in the applicable industry.
- Kaveren 8y ago
  Companies should not be going around offering bonuses to employees for ideas of things to patent. This is a flaw in the system. If you don't have the know-how to implement something, can you really call yourself the inventor of that thing? Inventors should be able to create prototypes, and if they're small-time maybe they can form a startup and gain investments.
- vertexFarm 8y ago
  Helping out "small time inventors" is the convenient, reasonable explanation for patents. It's pure PR. In reality, patents benefit large players far more than small ones. It's just even more reinforcement of the status quo. Make no mistake--it was designed that way from the outset, much like all structures of systemic power. People say patents just need to be reformed, but I think it's a hopelessly outdated system. It's a relic. It's not the nineteenth century anymore. To say we just need to review patents more carefully and only grant them to deserving and truly novel ideas is naive. The span of fields of specialization is far too wide--who would pay for such an army of specialized patent clerks for every branch of technology? How would you prevent regulatory capture when only the industry they regulate has that kind of expertise? How do you prevent bribery and corruption? It's impossible. We have a terrible patent review system because that is the reality of patent review.

Good. It's not a useful business model for society.

by adamc 8y ago

Good. It's not a useful business model for society.

I think it's an excellent business model and even has the incentive to help and encourage small time inventors who do not otherwise have the budget or know-how to implement or protect something the invent. Otherwise, corporations with huge budgets are the only ones that benefit from the patent system. But this comes with a big "if". IF the patents were actually novel. IF the patent office was actually doing its job and enforcing its own rules that a patent should be for something novel and non-obvious to people in the applicable industry.

Kaveren 8y ago
Companies should not be going around offering bonuses to employees for ideas of things to patent. This is a flaw in the system. If you don't have the know-how to implement something, can you really call yourself the inventor of that thing? Inventors should be able to create prototypes, and if they're small-time maybe they can form a startup and gain investments.
vertexFarm 8y ago
Helping out "small time inventors" is the convenient, reasonable explanation for patents. It's pure PR. In reality, patents benefit large players far more than small ones. It's just even more reinforcement of the status quo. Make no mistake--it was designed that way from the outset, much like all structures of systemic power. People say patents just need to be reformed, but I think it's a hopelessly outdated system. It's a relic. It's not the nineteenth century anymore. To say we just need to review patents more carefully and only grant them to deserving and truly novel ideas is naive. The span of fields of specialization is far too wide--who would pay for such an army of specialized patent clerks for every branch of technology? How would you prevent regulatory capture when only the industry they regulate has that kind of expertise? How do you prevent bribery and corruption? It's impossible. We have a terrible patent review system because that is the reality of patent review.