3 ms·

If it can’t be built, how does the patent harm anyone except the one who wasted their money to get the patent? There will never be a licensee or infringement to

by mokus 6y ago

If it can’t be built, how does the patent harm anyone except the one who wasted their money to get the patent? There will never be a licensee or infringement to sue over.

nullc 6y ago
Later, someone invents the stuff to make a related idea work. The patent holder here sues. His patent is technically invalid, because it couldn't be reduced to practice. Patents are presumed valid. So the burden of disproving it rests on the real inventor. They'll be advised to accept a settlement with the troll.
- dnautics 6y ago
  Doesn't the production of the related device show evidence that the original device could have been reduced to practice?
  - nullc 6y ago
    Not if new patentable inventions were required to make it work at all.
smolder 6y ago
It only wastes various people's time to patent something that can't be built. (The authors, regulators, and on-lookers.) However to speculatively patent something that later turns out to be viable could mean that some other party may have been prevented from taking the idea beyond speculation, since they can't capitalize on it, right? It hurts the incentive to really innovate when the patent system is clogged with speculative junk, nevermind the obvious patents. Speculating by itself isn't innovating and shouldn't be rewarded as such.
- bdowling 6y ago
  > ... some other party may have been prevented from taking the idea beyond speculation, since they can't capitalize on it, right? That's not really true. Suppose my invention requires A, B, and C, but C doesn't exist yet. Now suppose another inventor invents C and patents it. If I can't make my invention without C (i.e., there is no substitute), then they can charge whatever they want for it. They will take all of the profits.
  - ksaj 6y ago
    This is pretty much it. Every patent that relies on another patent lists what those are. For this very reason. A lot of patents have long lists of other patents they rely on. Sometimes the only reason something hasn't become a real thing is because of unresolved patent claims. And in any case, the patent is still useful because they can work on ways to get around the need for using the unresolved patent requirement. Ie: If my new-widget A relies on patents B and C, but C won't license it to me, it doesn't mean my patent is invalid. It only means I either have to eventually find a way to resolve that licensing issue with the C people, or find a way to replace C with something that doesn't infringe on their patent. Until then, my new-widget A is protected from a competitor (or even C themselves) selling it before I can find a way to deal with C licensing.
    - bdowling 6y ago
      > Every patent that relies on another patent lists what those are. For this very reason. That’s not the reason for the list of references in a patent. The reason for the list is to identify relevant prior inventions that may be useful to understanding the invention as well as references that the examiner considered during prosecution. The references don’t mean that the patent would infringe those prior inventions.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
If you can't build it today, but someone can build it in five or ten years, the patent lets you hold them hostage because you guessed right (even though you didn't do any of the work). That is not morally right. It also isn't the intent of patents, because it does absolutely nothing to further the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
- BuckRogers 6y ago
  Is it a “guess” though? I think that’s a stretch to call it such. That’s not really what’s going on.
- dnautics 6y ago
  If you're complaining that patent laws aren't morally right or they don't reflect their original intent, boy do I have some news for you about other laws...
- ksaj 6y ago
  If my research suggests it can happen in 5 or 10 years, it is not immoral for me to have a patent on it that can be licensed to a party that can add the special sauce that makes it work. Why would my research suddenly become public domain just because I had the idea but technology hadn't caught up yet, even though my research suggested that it would catch up?

by mokus 6y ago

If it can’t be built, how does the patent harm anyone except the one who wasted their money to get the patent? There will never be a licensee or infringement to sue over.

nullc 6y ago

Later, someone invents the stuff to make a related idea work. The patent holder here sues. His patent is technically invalid, because it couldn't be reduced to practice. Patents are presumed valid. So the burden of disproving it rests on the real inventor. They'll be advised to accept a settlement with the troll.

dnautics 6y ago
Doesn't the production of the related device show evidence that the original device could have been reduced to practice?
- nullc 6y ago
  Not if new patentable inventions were required to make it work at all.

smolder 6y ago

It only wastes various people's time to patent something that can't be built. (The authors, regulators, and on-lookers.) However to speculatively patent something that later turns out to be viable could mean that some other party may have been prevented from taking the idea beyond speculation, since they can't capitalize on it, right? It hurts the incentive to really innovate when the patent system is clogged with speculative junk, nevermind the obvious patents. Speculating by itself isn't innovating and shouldn't be rewarded as such.

bdowling 6y ago
> ... some other party may have been prevented from taking the idea beyond speculation, since they can't capitalize on it, right? That's not really true. Suppose my invention requires A, B, and C, but C doesn't exist yet. Now suppose another inventor invents C and patents it. If I can't make my invention without C (i.e., there is no substitute), then they can charge whatever they want for it. They will take all of the profits.
- ksaj 6y ago
  This is pretty much it. Every patent that relies on another patent lists what those are. For this very reason. A lot of patents have long lists of other patents they rely on. Sometimes the only reason something hasn't become a real thing is because of unresolved patent claims. And in any case, the patent is still useful because they can work on ways to get around the need for using the unresolved patent requirement. Ie: If my new-widget A relies on patents B and C, but C won't license it to me, it doesn't mean my patent is invalid. It only means I either have to eventually find a way to resolve that licensing issue with the C people, or find a way to replace C with something that doesn't infringe on their patent. Until then, my new-widget A is protected from a competitor (or even C themselves) selling it before I can find a way to deal with C licensing.
  - bdowling 6y ago
    > Every patent that relies on another patent lists what those are. For this very reason. That’s not the reason for the list of references in a patent. The reason for the list is to identify relevant prior inventions that may be useful to understanding the invention as well as references that the examiner considered during prosecution. The references don’t mean that the patent would infringe those prior inventions.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

If you can't build it today, but someone can build it in five or ten years, the patent lets you hold them hostage because you guessed right (even though you didn't do any of the work). That is not morally right. It also isn't the intent of patents, because it does absolutely nothing to further the progress of the useful arts and sciences.

BuckRogers 6y ago
Is it a “guess” though? I think that’s a stretch to call it such. That’s not really what’s going on.
dnautics 6y ago
If you're complaining that patent laws aren't morally right or they don't reflect their original intent, boy do I have some news for you about other laws...
ksaj 6y ago
If my research suggests it can happen in 5 or 10 years, it is not immoral for me to have a patent on it that can be licensed to a party that can add the special sauce that makes it work. Why would my research suddenly become public domain just because I had the idea but technology hadn't caught up yet, even though my research suggested that it would catch up?