4 ms·

> If the patent is protecting some business's hockey-stick growth, it's worth the fee, so it fulfills the original purpose of patents, that is, avoiding trade s

by ardy42 6y ago

> If the patent is protecting some business's hockey-stick growth, it's worth the fee, so it fulfills the original purpose of patents, that is, avoiding trade secrets while protecting cash-cow inventions for a limited time. Wasn't the original purpose of patents not to protect big business's hockey-stick grown, but to allow small inventors to capitalize on their inventions (and not have them shamelessly ripped off by some big business). I think the other original purpose was to make sure inventions would eventually become publicized and exploitable by all. That exponential patents idea seems like it would render patent protection prohibitively expensive for all except maybe the rich or inventors unusually well-position to quickly capitalize on their invention. The little guy who takes ten years to get his business off the ground is out of luck.

chx 6y ago
My experience with the little guy and patents are second hand: my uncle is the literal bearded guy tinkering in his garage... until he invented a new sprinkler head which he promp tly patented. This was a massive win for everyone involved: he didn't need to raise enough capital to build a factory, on the other hand the factory who eventually bought it became one of the world leaders in the field and sold many millions of it without fronting the cost for the R&D process. So yes, sometimes the patent system works.
- NetOpWibby 6y ago
  What’s your uncle doing now? Still inventing?
  - chx 6y ago
    He is mostly retired, dabbling in some coding. Inbetween he rode the solar wave, had a successful solar installation company, with two more patents which of course were nowhere near as successful.
- cft 6y ago
  The problem is that some areas of technology are now completely outside of the little guy's domain. Biotech and even electronics patents now require large r&d budgets, otherwise they're obvious and thus not innovative. In other words, a lone inventor in those areas without a serious R&D budget probably means a patent troll. I think in these areas (unlike mechanical engineering) patents should become exponential. As a reform, it would be more palpable to change the fee schedule depending on the area of the patent.
visarga 6y ago
The keyword here is "limited" time, ideally more limited than it is now for inventions that don't take off fast enough. Maybe the original inventor doesn't have the skills to perfect it and is just sitting on the patent.
- Retric 6y ago
  In theory licensing patents solves this problem. If the original inventor doesn’t license or sell the product then owning the patent is literally worthless. Unfortunately, that requires a skilled patent office to reject trivial patents, but not minor but ingenious improvements. Which is in practice an unrealistic standard. However, I think the balance generally works in the other direction. 20 years feels excessive, but it’s arguably fast enough that taking something from a lab to mass production often eats up 1/2 the time. Further, many patents that are obvious like asteroid mining are going to expire long before their practical. On the other hand simply waiting out the clock to manufacture something means being really behind, thus pushing licensing.
  - labawi 6y ago
    > If the original inventor doesn’t license or sell the product then owning the patent is literally worthless. That's only true for the public. A company may not with to license patent use under truly fair conditions, because it would compete with their products using a different technology, they may not with to license to potential competitors, and/or small businesses (fairly). Alternatively, holder may be using the patent, but choose that their current cash-cow is good-enough so why support competition and innovation, when they can just bump it up slightly every 10 years or so.
    - Retric 6y ago
      > it would compete with their products Defensive and overly broad patents are definitely a thing, but the intent is to give a monopoly for a limited time. Locking down alternatives not currently in production that are obvious workarounds is kind of a requirement for most patents to be meaningful. The issue is when a company in effect owns an industry and then keeps submitting obvious patents. But, here the problem is with obvious patents being granted.
ZeroGravitas 6y ago
The original purpose was to make friends of the king rich by allowing only them to tax the sale of salt or whatever and using his army to kill anyone who didn't like that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent
fulafel 6y ago
The original purpose of patents was dealing out monopoly rights to various fields of business to domedtic groups well connected to the crown.
nine_k 6y ago
Indeed, that's the point. Either you make your patent make money for you, or sell it. Otherwise, you let your exclusive rights go. A ton of patented stuff is regularly reinvented by people. In many fields, key ideas are so well-understood by practitioners that who patents them first is mostly a game of chance. There's no point to allow someone (usually a company that does nothing but sits on patents) to do nothing while blocking everyone else from independently reinventing and implementing it. It is especially spearheaded against companies which buy and then bury an idea to preserve their incumbent status for 25 years more. A monopoly is a bad thing. Sometimes it's a lesser evil, but most often it's not.

by ardy42 6y ago

chx 6y ago

My experience with the little guy and patents are second hand: my uncle is the literal bearded guy tinkering in his garage... until he invented a new sprinkler head which he promp tly patented. This was a massive win for everyone involved: he didn't need to raise enough capital to build a factory, on the other hand the factory who eventually bought it became one of the world leaders in the field and sold many millions of it without fronting the cost for the R&D process. So yes, sometimes the patent system works.

NetOpWibby 6y ago
What’s your uncle doing now? Still inventing?
- chx 6y ago
  He is mostly retired, dabbling in some coding. Inbetween he rode the solar wave, had a successful solar installation company, with two more patents which of course were nowhere near as successful.
cft 6y ago
The problem is that some areas of technology are now completely outside of the little guy's domain. Biotech and even electronics patents now require large r&d budgets, otherwise they're obvious and thus not innovative. In other words, a lone inventor in those areas without a serious R&D budget probably means a patent troll. I think in these areas (unlike mechanical engineering) patents should become exponential. As a reform, it would be more palpable to change the fee schedule depending on the area of the patent.

visarga 6y ago

The keyword here is "limited" time, ideally more limited than it is now for inventions that don't take off fast enough. Maybe the original inventor doesn't have the skills to perfect it and is just sitting on the patent.

Retric 6y ago
In theory licensing patents solves this problem. If the original inventor doesn’t license or sell the product then owning the patent is literally worthless. Unfortunately, that requires a skilled patent office to reject trivial patents, but not minor but ingenious improvements. Which is in practice an unrealistic standard. However, I think the balance generally works in the other direction. 20 years feels excessive, but it’s arguably fast enough that taking something from a lab to mass production often eats up 1/2 the time. Further, many patents that are obvious like asteroid mining are going to expire long before their practical. On the other hand simply waiting out the clock to manufacture something means being really behind, thus pushing licensing.
- labawi 6y ago
  > If the original inventor doesn’t license or sell the product then owning the patent is literally worthless. That's only true for the public. A company may not with to license patent use under truly fair conditions, because it would compete with their products using a different technology, they may not with to license to potential competitors, and/or small businesses (fairly). Alternatively, holder may be using the patent, but choose that their current cash-cow is good-enough so why support competition and innovation, when they can just bump it up slightly every 10 years or so.
  - Retric 6y ago
    > it would compete with their products Defensive and overly broad patents are definitely a thing, but the intent is to give a monopoly for a limited time. Locking down alternatives not currently in production that are obvious workarounds is kind of a requirement for most patents to be meaningful. The issue is when a company in effect owns an industry and then keeps submitting obvious patents. But, here the problem is with obvious patents being granted.

ZeroGravitas 6y ago

The original purpose was to make friends of the king rich by allowing only them to tax the sale of salt or whatever and using his army to kill anyone who didn't like that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent

fulafel 6y ago

The original purpose of patents was dealing out monopoly rights to various fields of business to domedtic groups well connected to the crown.

nine_k 6y ago

Indeed, that's the point. Either you make your patent make money for you, or sell it. Otherwise, you let your exclusive rights go. A ton of patented stuff is regularly reinvented by people. In many fields, key ideas are so well-understood by practitioners that who patents them first is mostly a game of chance. There's no point to allow someone (usually a company that does nothing but sits on patents) to do nothing while blocking everyone else from independently reinventing and implementing it. It is especially spearheaded against companies which buy and then bury an idea to preserve their incumbent status for 25 years more. A monopoly is a bad thing. Sometimes it's a lesser evil, but most often it's not.