4 ms·

I think part of they problem is that whoever invented this paint is going to want a massive premium for its sale. So it'll get some niche industry use until the

I think part of they problem is that whoever invented this paint is going to want a massive premium for its sale. So it'll get some niche industry use until the patent expires and people start painting their desert roofs with it, or whatever else. Apply to this virtually every technical innovation that is iterative. Fundamental breakthroughs allow for a shakeup of the incumbents, iterative ones don't, due to the archaic IP laws that only serve to stifle innovation. I think a better solution would be arbitrated profit sharing as a percentage of the cost of the product proportional to the value added with no requirement for the consent of the rights owner. Decay the percentage to 0 over the same timespan as current patents.

bwestergard 6y ago
This is a very insightful comment. Perhaps you are aware, but some economists have designed mechanisms to "split the difference" in a manner similar to what you describe: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2744810 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2744810
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  I was not aware, though I am not the least bit surprised to discover that economists have explored this before I tapped it out. Thanks for the link!
dismalpedigree 6y ago
I’m pretty sure this is developed and patented by Purdue University (or perhaps a partnership). They don’t really try to extract extreme fees for usage.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
Or get rid of patents entirely and let innovation and copying happen freely. I already ditched all my physical startup ideas because China could clone any of them in half a day and I think it's fair: they have superior / more efficient manufacturing available. Similarly I don't see why discovering something should force everyone else on the planet to give you money. In this particular case, thought, the article claims they won't be patent trolls and this paint should be cheaply available.

bwestergard 6y ago

This is a very insightful comment. Perhaps you are aware, but some economists have designed mechanisms to "split the difference" in a manner similar to what you describe: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2744810 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2744810

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
I was not aware, though I am not the least bit surprised to discover that economists have explored this before I tapped it out. Thanks for the link!

dismalpedigree 6y ago

I’m pretty sure this is developed and patented by Purdue University (or perhaps a partnership). They don’t really try to extract extreme fees for usage.

jokethrowaway 6y ago

Or get rid of patents entirely and let innovation and copying happen freely. I already ditched all my physical startup ideas because China could clone any of them in half a day and I think it's fair: they have superior / more efficient manufacturing available. Similarly I don't see why discovering something should force everyone else on the planet to give you money. In this particular case, thought, the article claims they won't be patent trolls and this paint should be cheaply available.