4 ms·

Patents are not on ideas. They are on ideas reduced to practice. If you can find another method for the same outcome, it's not covered by the patent. If you

Patents are not on ideas. They are on ideas reduced to practice. If you can find another method for the same outcome, it's not covered by the patent. If you improve on the method , you can patent the improvement and charge the original holder to license it. The biggest thing wrong with patents are the logistics (lengthy, expensive filings and 20y monopolies are ridiculous today) and the lack of oversight in identitying prior art or vague, overreaching scopes.

Teever 6y ago
Ideas reduced to practice are still ideas. They're just metaideas.
rbanffy 6y ago
> charge the original holder to license it. Or the holder can charge so much for their idea that yours, which depends on theirs, is effectively worth nothing because it's priced above its value.
snvzz 6y ago
Patents are an extremely strong restriction on freedom, and need an even stronger justification. That they "might", "maybe", be an incentive to creativity is not exactly a strong justification. It is highly likely patents are doing more damage than good.
- rswail 6y ago
  Their justification, at least in the United States is Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution: “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” You can argue the meaning of "limited times" and "discoveries" and the interpretation of all that, but the justification is that by providing a limited monopoly, the inventor gets a period to make money uncontested, after which the invention is available to the community. The alternative, a "trade secret", means that the invention may die with the death of the inventor and be lost to the community.
  - snvzz 6y ago
    I'll just restate: >That they "might", "maybe", be an incentive to creativity is not exactly a strong justification. Whereas your constitution quote does express intent, but does not provide justification. It's not backed on hard science, but just a guess.

Teever 6y ago

Ideas reduced to practice are still ideas. They're just metaideas.

rbanffy 6y ago

> charge the original holder to license it. Or the holder can charge so much for their idea that yours, which depends on theirs, is effectively worth nothing because it's priced above its value.

snvzz 6y ago

Patents are an extremely strong restriction on freedom, and need an even stronger justification. That they "might", "maybe", be an incentive to creativity is not exactly a strong justification. It is highly likely patents are doing more damage than good.

rswail 6y ago
Their justification, at least in the United States is Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution: “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” You can argue the meaning of "limited times" and "discoveries" and the interpretation of all that, but the justification is that by providing a limited monopoly, the inventor gets a period to make money uncontested, after which the invention is available to the community. The alternative, a "trade secret", means that the invention may die with the death of the inventor and be lost to the community.
- snvzz 6y ago
  I'll just restate: >That they "might", "maybe", be an incentive to creativity is not exactly a strong justification. Whereas your constitution quote does express intent, but does not provide justification. It's not backed on hard science, but just a guess.