4 ms·
Doesn't this work against small-time inventors? Price it too high, and they can't afford to keep it (don't have time to sell it or build a business around it);
by stordoff 7y ago
Doesn't this work against small-time inventors? Price it too high, and they can't afford to keep it (don't have time to sell it or build a business around it); price it too low, and someone can just buy it off them. Perhaps it could lapse sooner if you aren't paying the tax (to discourage people from just sitting on patents), but that doesn't solve patent trolling.
- _jal 7y agoRemember, the rationale for the existence of patents is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", not to reward people with monopolies, which is the mechanism. This is one of several related reasons why I hate the term "intellectual property". Ideas are not property, and shoving them into a property-rights framework and thinking of them as such leads to all sorts of perverse results.
- baroffoos 7y agoIt seems fair that you should have to pay some kind of fee to reserve useful ideas. If you don't have the ability to turn ideas in to reality then they should be given to someone else who can pay the purchase price.
- alasdair_ 7y agoIt would be possible to, say, make it royalty free until either you tried to use it in litigation or, say, five years had passed. If you can’t make the thing event slightly useful in five years, society doesn’t gain much for you having an exclusive monopoly on the thing. So long as the tax is low percentage wise, the yearly cost to keep it as your own would be well worth it.
- mlyle 7y agoDoesn't work very well for e.g. drugs, where you may have the first 10 years of the patent term effectively useless because of approval cycles, etc.