4 ms·

What about making patents valid only for 1 year or 2 from the commercial release ? This is enough to foster / protect innovation

• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• pizza234 6y ago
  The patent times was established in a time were development times were considerably longer. Even if one is entirely in favor of the patent system as it is, the expiry time should be shortened in order to match the original idea. How many (software) industrial year correspond to 20 years in the nineteenth century? Say, 5? This would drastically improve the patent problem considerably, without having to change the substance of patents legislation.
• pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Possibly, but I'd think 10 years as a minimum. Another option for you: increase renewal fees proportional to revenue (or simply exponentially). The patent deal is a balance between private and public interests, weigh towards public interests with a bigger share of the proceeds.
  • dredmorbius 6y ago
    Neither patents nor copyrights in the US can be renewed. Patents are filed for and valid from 20 years from filing, on grant, with no renewal. Copyright is automatic and extends for author's life + 70 years, or for anonymous or works-for-hire, the shorter of 120 years from creation or 90 years from publication. Copyright prior to 1976 was for a term of 28 years, extensible once, both requiring registration.
    • rcxdude 6y ago
      For patents, you do need to pay maintenance fees up to the 20 years, however (at 3.5 years, 7.5 years, and 11.5 years, with increasing costs, but they aren't particularly high)
      • dredmorbius 6y ago
        Thanks. I think I may have known that, once.
• zanny 6y ago
  Patents come off as the same problem charging fares for inner-city busses causes. A lot of places have realized that just operating, maintaining, and sustaining the overhead of ticketing, processing payments, and managing the many complications that arise is often not worth the money being made if most people are using annual passes or some such. Same with subways, toll roads, etc. In many of those cases it makes way more sense economically, especially considering time-value of private parties involved, to just stop trying to charge entirely and have the revenue come from elsewhere. I feel it is blatantly obvious in modern society patents (and copyrights, IP in general) operate this way. That the bureaucracy required to put them on a "reasonable" timetable of government granted monopoly whereby society can broadly benefit from the innovation isn't worth the legal, public, and private overhead in maintaining a system that is obviously defunct and outdated. Thats part of what lead me to IP abolitionism, anyway. In practice very few "small" creators file patents, those that do rarely have the means to enforce them (or copyrights), and those that have the means don't have the time because they are too busy creating. Yes, once something you made is out there without IP anyone else can take it, build on it, or just simply repackage it and reuse it. So get your money out of it before its out there, kind of like how anything else you sell works.