3 ms·

> the patent system stifles innovation. Patents protect inventors and encourage innovation. There's no better way to encourage invention than to protect those

> the patent system stifles innovation. Patents protect inventors and encourage innovation. There's no better way to encourage invention than to protect those who came up with the idea. I don't like it when they're applied to software but that's another story.

RHSeeger 6y ago
Patents both encourage and discourage innovation. - If I invent something and patent it, I can assure that I am the only one that can benefit from it for a period of time; to recoup the costs involved. - If I invent something based on someone else's patent, they can deny me the right to use their patent if they think it would negatively impact them (for example, if my version is better and nobody would buy their version once mine was available). In many cases, it's just not worth bothering to even try innovating in an area because of this (and similar reasons). Patents have both good and bad points. Presenting just the good or just the bad, and pretending it's the only valid view, is disingenuous at best.
hakfoo 6y ago
Patents support a fairly narrow model of what innovation is "supposed to be"-- the one man in a garage who can scale his product from zero to infinity with little to no outside support. The thing is, for a lot of industries, that's a dated pipedream. It's not 1804 and you're not Richard Trevithick. You're not going to challenge TSMC with a semiconductor fab built in the backyard shed. Even if you had huge amounts of startup capital and a laser-focused market vision, there's also a lot of innovation that's time-sensitive: for example, if you're building a better petrol engine or coal-burning generator, will you be able to scale before the product is obsolete? Beyond that, I suspect there are also a fair number of patent holders who just take potshots at the market-- wildly mis-guessing their target market or (attempting to get orders or raise funds) based on promising undeliverables, because they don't have the full knowledge of getting a product to market. After their business fails, they'll just spend the rest of the patent term as legal unexploded ordnance-- useless by themselves but waiting to blow the leg off of some poor sod who happened to step in the wrong place. Reducing the term from 20 years to 10 or even 5 would tend to prioritize partnership development rather than the "one man in a garage" mentality: with the clock ticking that fast, your best chance is to license broadly, hoping that someone will get product to market before the patent expires.
dingaling 6y ago
> Patents protect inventors and encourage innovation. Practically, patents only protect large-scale holders with time and finance to enforce them. "For a claim that could be worth less than a $1 million, median legal costs are $650,000. " https://www.cnet.com/news/how-much-is-that-patent-lawsuit-going-to-cost-you/ https://www.cnet.com/news/how-much-is-that-patent-lawsuit-go... I've seen this first hand, a friend obtained a patent on an invention and offered it to various companies. They feigned disinterest and then simply developed their own versions of it. He couldn't afford to sue, so did nothing.
- unityByFreedom 6y ago
  > Practically, patents only protect large-scale holders with time and finance to enforce them They still do protect individual inventors. And, this isn't justification that patents discourage innovation, as a parent comment alleged. Patents protect individuals who may be acquired and compensated by larger entities. There's nothing dubious about this.
- yyyk 6y ago
  The clever play would be to sell the patent to a patent troll, and let the companies deal with the litigation. Ironically having multiple violators can make the patent more valuable.

RHSeeger 6y ago

Patents both encourage and discourage innovation. - If I invent something and patent it, I can assure that I am the only one that can benefit from it for a period of time; to recoup the costs involved. - If I invent something based on someone else's patent, they can deny me the right to use their patent if they think it would negatively impact them (for example, if my version is better and nobody would buy their version once mine was available). In many cases, it's just not worth bothering to even try innovating in an area because of this (and similar reasons). Patents have both good and bad points. Presenting just the good or just the bad, and pretending it's the only valid view, is disingenuous at best.

hakfoo 6y ago

Patents support a fairly narrow model of what innovation is "supposed to be"-- the one man in a garage who can scale his product from zero to infinity with little to no outside support. The thing is, for a lot of industries, that's a dated pipedream. It's not 1804 and you're not Richard Trevithick. You're not going to challenge TSMC with a semiconductor fab built in the backyard shed. Even if you had huge amounts of startup capital and a laser-focused market vision, there's also a lot of innovation that's time-sensitive: for example, if you're building a better petrol engine or coal-burning generator, will you be able to scale before the product is obsolete? Beyond that, I suspect there are also a fair number of patent holders who just take potshots at the market-- wildly mis-guessing their target market or (attempting to get orders or raise funds) based on promising undeliverables, because they don't have the full knowledge of getting a product to market. After their business fails, they'll just spend the rest of the patent term as legal unexploded ordnance-- useless by themselves but waiting to blow the leg off of some poor sod who happened to step in the wrong place. Reducing the term from 20 years to 10 or even 5 would tend to prioritize partnership development rather than the "one man in a garage" mentality: with the clock ticking that fast, your best chance is to license broadly, hoping that someone will get product to market before the patent expires.

dingaling 6y ago

> Patents protect inventors and encourage innovation. Practically, patents only protect large-scale holders with time and finance to enforce them. "For a claim that could be worth less than a $1 million, median legal costs are $650,000. " https://www.cnet.com/news/how-much-is-that-patent-lawsuit-going-to-cost-you/ https://www.cnet.com/news/how-much-is-that-patent-lawsuit-go... I've seen this first hand, a friend obtained a patent on an invention and offered it to various companies. They feigned disinterest and then simply developed their own versions of it. He couldn't afford to sue, so did nothing.

unityByFreedom 6y ago
> Practically, patents only protect large-scale holders with time and finance to enforce them They still do protect individual inventors. And, this isn't justification that patents discourage innovation, as a parent comment alleged. Patents protect individuals who may be acquired and compensated by larger entities. There's nothing dubious about this.
yyyk 6y ago
The clever play would be to sell the patent to a patent troll, and let the companies deal with the litigation. Ironically having multiple violators can make the patent more valuable.