3 ms·

> If you're suggesting a 1 year patent period for all utility patents, you might as well just get rid of patents. In the industry I work in (Biotech - DNA seque

by rapsey 7y ago

> If you're suggesting a 1 year patent period for all utility patents, you might as well just get rid of patents. In the industry I work in (Biotech - DNA sequencing) it takes maybe 5 years to mature an approach and get it to market. So have a two phase validity. Once it's in the market you have a year.

dkersten 7y ago
You’d want some limitations on the first phase too, so that companies don’t hold onto their patents indefinitely while waiting for the perfect market conditions for their one-year monopoly.
- mcny 7y ago
  A real solution is don't apply for patent protection. The down side is if someone else also figured it out, you don't get anything. Makes sense to me.
  - dkersten 7y ago
    Yes, I agree. I'm not a fan of patents. While I understand the desire to protect ones investment, it doesn't make sense to me that it should be done at the expense of someone else's investment, since multiple people coming up with similar ideas around the same time isn't particularly uncommon and unfortunately there's no easy way to differentiate those from plagiarism.
new299 7y ago
This encourages companies to withhold products from the market. In many, cases they will withhold products for the maximal allowable period before releasing them into the market. This will give them the maximum period of patent coverage, and prevent other players from releasing products. Market leaders in particular will want to extend their coverage using this technique. Aside from this, what is "on the market" most novel scientific equipment undergoes early access. This period often lasts up to a year, usually equipment is sold at a loss or near cost. The product is validated. So... they recover none of their R&D during the patent period (making the patent largely useless). So... perhaps you structure things such that you give this patent covered product away for free during early access. But you use the product to recognize revenue elsewhere (consumables, reagents... whatever)... Thereby extending your coverage period. So... how will all this be policed/structured so companies can't find ways round it? If you can find a way of enforcing it, it still doesn't work out for the companies. In my experience a scientific startup needs at least 5 years in R&D.. an then at least 5 years on the market to cover those R&D expenses. If this is going to get funded by a VC it then needs a high enough return to cover all the VCs investments. This is then looking like a minimum of 10 years of patent coverage, and something like 20 years to make it worthwhile for VCs. Yea, you can get rid of patents all together. Probably the investment/funding sources will need to change and that might not be a bad thing. But I can't see that what you're suggesting is workable.

by rapsey 7y ago

dkersten 7y ago

You’d want some limitations on the first phase too, so that companies don’t hold onto their patents indefinitely while waiting for the perfect market conditions for their one-year monopoly.

mcny 7y ago
A real solution is don't apply for patent protection. The down side is if someone else also figured it out, you don't get anything. Makes sense to me.
- dkersten 7y ago
  Yes, I agree. I'm not a fan of patents. While I understand the desire to protect ones investment, it doesn't make sense to me that it should be done at the expense of someone else's investment, since multiple people coming up with similar ideas around the same time isn't particularly uncommon and unfortunately there's no easy way to differentiate those from plagiarism.

new299 7y ago

This encourages companies to withhold products from the market. In many, cases they will withhold products for the maximal allowable period before releasing them into the market. This will give them the maximum period of patent coverage, and prevent other players from releasing products. Market leaders in particular will want to extend their coverage using this technique. Aside from this, what is "on the market" most novel scientific equipment undergoes early access. This period often lasts up to a year, usually equipment is sold at a loss or near cost. The product is validated. So... they recover none of their R&D during the patent period (making the patent largely useless). So... perhaps you structure things such that you give this patent covered product away for free during early access. But you use the product to recognize revenue elsewhere (consumables, reagents... whatever)... Thereby extending your coverage period. So... how will all this be policed/structured so companies can't find ways round it? If you can find a way of enforcing it, it still doesn't work out for the companies. In my experience a scientific startup needs at least 5 years in R&D.. an then at least 5 years on the market to cover those R&D expenses. If this is going to get funded by a VC it then needs a high enough return to cover all the VCs investments. This is then looking like a minimum of 10 years of patent coverage, and something like 20 years to make it worthwhile for VCs. Yea, you can get rid of patents all together. Probably the investment/funding sources will need to change and that might not be a bad thing. But I can't see that what you're suggesting is workable.