4 ms·

I've liked the idea of an exponential cost to holding a patent - as in, the cost to maintain it doubles every year. If you're producing a product that's highly

by loceng 6y ago

I've liked the idea of an exponential cost to holding a patent - as in, the cost to maintain it doubles every year. If you're producing a product that's highly successful, profitable, then you'll be able to afford to keep the patent for more years. If you're a patent troll not producing anything, it's going to get expensive quick. Edit to add: I just realized patents are definitely part of the legal industrial complex..

akersten 6y ago
If that could be implemented fairly (scaling costs based on total revenue so small-time businesses aren't locked out of the system, without giving non-producers/patent trolls a free $0 patent) then that seems like a good compromise.
- kortilla 6y ago
  No, that’s a waste. If it’s not worth scaling up the cost, it’s not worth it for society to give the business exclusivity.
erk__ 6y ago
But this will not solve anything else about patents, there will be less reason to license them and such as the amount of time they can run for without any special income through the patent will be much less. Thus giving companies and inventors with a large capital a larger one up on the people that patents are also supposed to protect.
- loceng 6y ago
  So maybe licensing dies off and it will have to be the patent holder who actually executes on creating something with it - is that a pro or a con?
  - chongli 6y ago
    Lots of inventions can be discovered by an individual with access to a lab (for example, at a university) yet cannot realistically be brought to market without billions in capital they may not have access to. Licensing is supposed to fix this by allowing these inventors to profit from their inventions without needing to get into manufacturing.
    - loceng 6y ago
      At what cost to society? Statements for one side or the other without looking at it in balance, as an equation, doesn't allow us to see the full picture and consequences.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tehjoker 6y ago
That changes the game only slightly. Large companies will then be able to hold out over smaller ones far larger reentrenching monopolist behavior. Basically, market mechanisms always favor the rich. You need a fair system not one based on money assuming you even think patents are defensible.
goldcd 6y ago
I like that - but there are other options randomly thinks of something When you file your patent, you add blind optional licensing terms to it. For $x your company can use this. Or for $y you can license each device that uses it. For $z you can buy this (not invalidating any other registered uses). That way when developing something, you can work out whether it's cost efficient to use/avoid/buy - and remove all the risk of litigation and the overhead of lawyers. Patent system is broken - but on one hand don't think cancelling it is the answer, but resent the sink of cash that it sucks in by existing in its current form.
chongli 6y ago
How does this protect an individual inventor who invents (for example) a revolutionary new battery but is unable to secure the enormous capital needed to manufacture it? If the cost to maintain the patent is exponential then the existing battery makers need only wait for the inventor to go broke.
- loceng 6y ago
  Ideally people are researching and innovating because it's something they're passionate about and not doing it purely for financial gain. I also believe we'll have a better funding model than what financial-VC industrial complex has provided us/allowed, crowdfunding of sorts. I'd also like to ask: isn't that already a problem? How many independent battery tech companies are there, and how many have scaled? Also, maybe different technologies have different rates of patent cost increase - so that way the more expensive to get going sectors for technology dev have a longer runway or grace period. There are lots of ways to make things flexible. Andrew Yang also suggested making government rewards for technology development, so instead of a patent for some type of technology you get say $10,000,000 - or maybe even $1 billion if your tech meets whatever benchmarks spec'd.
  - chongli 6y ago
    Ideally people are researching and innovating because it's something they're passionate about and not doing it purely for financial gain. If that's your position then why not abolish patents? I'm a lot more in favour of that. Personally, I think the patent system discourages innovation and encourages rent-seeking. Andrew Yang also suggested making government rewards for technology development, so instead of a patent for some type of technology you get say $10,000,000 - or maybe even $1 billion if your tech meets whatever benchmarks spec'd. I like this idea at an instinctual level but I worry that it would be open to abuse. Perhaps the abuse of a system like that would be less bad than the patent system we have right now but that remains to be seen. I do know that a lot of people would be generally opposed to it on principle. They would see it as an undeserved handout.
ehvatum 6y ago
Great - so if I’m dependent on a patented product, it’s going to get exponentially more expensive and all that money will be funneled to the patent office. This helps nobody.

by loceng 6y ago

akersten 6y ago

If that could be implemented fairly (scaling costs based on total revenue so small-time businesses aren't locked out of the system, without giving non-producers/patent trolls a free $0 patent) then that seems like a good compromise.

kortilla 6y ago
No, that’s a waste. If it’s not worth scaling up the cost, it’s not worth it for society to give the business exclusivity.

erk__ 6y ago

But this will not solve anything else about patents, there will be less reason to license them and such as the amount of time they can run for without any special income through the patent will be much less. Thus giving companies and inventors with a large capital a larger one up on the people that patents are also supposed to protect.

loceng 6y ago
So maybe licensing dies off and it will have to be the patent holder who actually executes on creating something with it - is that a pro or a con?
- chongli 6y ago
  Lots of inventions can be discovered by an individual with access to a lab (for example, at a university) yet cannot realistically be brought to market without billions in capital they may not have access to. Licensing is supposed to fix this by allowing these inventors to profit from their inventions without needing to get into manufacturing.
  - loceng 6y ago
    At what cost to society? Statements for one side or the other without looking at it in balance, as an equation, doesn't allow us to see the full picture and consequences.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tehjoker 6y ago

That changes the game only slightly. Large companies will then be able to hold out over smaller ones far larger reentrenching monopolist behavior. Basically, market mechanisms always favor the rich. You need a fair system not one based on money assuming you even think patents are defensible.

goldcd 6y ago

I like that - but there are other options randomly thinks of something When you file your patent, you add blind optional licensing terms to it. For $x your company can use this. Or for $y you can license each device that uses it. For $z you can buy this (not invalidating any other registered uses). That way when developing something, you can work out whether it's cost efficient to use/avoid/buy - and remove all the risk of litigation and the overhead of lawyers. Patent system is broken - but on one hand don't think cancelling it is the answer, but resent the sink of cash that it sucks in by existing in its current form.

chongli 6y ago

How does this protect an individual inventor who invents (for example) a revolutionary new battery but is unable to secure the enormous capital needed to manufacture it? If the cost to maintain the patent is exponential then the existing battery makers need only wait for the inventor to go broke.

loceng 6y ago
Ideally people are researching and innovating because it's something they're passionate about and not doing it purely for financial gain. I also believe we'll have a better funding model than what financial-VC industrial complex has provided us/allowed, crowdfunding of sorts. I'd also like to ask: isn't that already a problem? How many independent battery tech companies are there, and how many have scaled? Also, maybe different technologies have different rates of patent cost increase - so that way the more expensive to get going sectors for technology dev have a longer runway or grace period. There are lots of ways to make things flexible. Andrew Yang also suggested making government rewards for technology development, so instead of a patent for some type of technology you get say $10,000,000 - or maybe even $1 billion if your tech meets whatever benchmarks spec'd.
- chongli 6y ago
  Ideally people are researching and innovating because it's something they're passionate about and not doing it purely for financial gain. If that's your position then why not abolish patents? I'm a lot more in favour of that. Personally, I think the patent system discourages innovation and encourages rent-seeking. Andrew Yang also suggested making government rewards for technology development, so instead of a patent for some type of technology you get say $10,000,000 - or maybe even $1 billion if your tech meets whatever benchmarks spec'd. I like this idea at an instinctual level but I worry that it would be open to abuse. Perhaps the abuse of a system like that would be less bad than the patent system we have right now but that remains to be seen. I do know that a lot of people would be generally opposed to it on principle. They would see it as an undeserved handout.

ehvatum 6y ago

Great - so if I’m dependent on a patented product, it’s going to get exponentially more expensive and all that money will be funneled to the patent office. This helps nobody.