9 ms·

Patents clearly kill innovation. Like, that shouldn't even be a question. Fun fact: when the US entered WWI they had to buy warplanes because they didn't have

by cletus 5y ago

Patents clearly kill innovation. Like, that shouldn't even be a question. Fun fact: when the US entered WWI they had to buy warplanes because they didn't have the capacity to build them. Why? The original steering patent related to Orville and Wright was used to stifle innovation [1]. This was such a problem that a patent pool had to be created. Likewise, e-ink devices have largely had no innovation due to the patents of the e-ink corporation being used to stifle innovation. I'm relatively OK with pharmaceutical patents... within reason. The big problem in the US is you can't import that same drug from another country where the same company is making the exact same product. I realize they do this for price differentiation but this has gone way too far and is a big reason why US drugs are so expensive. In the very least you should be able to legally import such drugs from any developed nation. But look at something like a smartphone and there are literally thousands of patents that apply to that product. That's... ridiculous. Business models shouldn't be patentable. Software shouldn't be patentable. Obvious hardware innovations (eg applying more than one texture per clock cycle) shouldn't be patentable. Software can be protected by copyright. The US PTO and the US Federal Court of Appeals are clearly in a state of regulatory capture at this point (so much so that the Supreme Court has taken to routinely slapping down the excesses of the US FCoA) so I suspect any feedback on this will be used to justify that yes patents do protect innovation. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war

bern4444 5y ago
The e-ink patent is so frustrating. Another good example of a patent restricting innovation was the patent on 3D Printers. That's why in the past few years, 3D printers have become so much more prevalent and accessible (you can buy one for a few hundred dollars today). These definitely stifle innovation. I'd think a more reasonable approach could be, you have a patent for 15 years (or whatever arbitrary number is reasonable) or until the patent holder makes some multiple dollar amount from things that use whatever is patented. That is, if it costs a million dollars to develop e-ink screens, the patent is valid until the company has had revenue of 20 million dollars on devices that have e-ink screens. Tying it to revenue instead of profit is intended since profits can be turned into revenue easily to bypass the restriction otherwise. You could also add a minimum number of years (obviously less than the max mentioned above) so companies have some protection across various metrics.
- pclmulqdq 5y ago
  In the EU, patents have escalating fees. They don't escalate very fast, but I think this would help with innovation a lot. IMO the first ~4 years can cost a few thousand dollars (so you can get your startup up and running), but the 20th year of a patent should escalate to several hundred thousand or million dollars. That way, building a long-lived "patent fence" becomes economically infeasible the way it is today.
  - chongli 5y ago
    Economically infeasible for NPEs, sure, but still a rounding error for Big Tech. The issue with schemes that make it difficult for NPEs is that they hurt the small inventor who cannot afford to capitalize their invention. Owners of capital may be able to form a monopsony to drive down the price of patent licenses and essentially squeeze out small inventors.
    - motives 5y ago
      Just as an example, IBM receives almost 10,000 patents a year. At $100,000-$1,000,000 per patent, that year of patents alone in 15-20 years time would cost $1-10 billion. That is most definitely not a rounding error and would constitute as much as 10% of their annual revenue just to keep that single years worth of patents. I think this sort of escalating pricing scheme would definitely help reduce the barriers for startups and new innovators, and prevent abuse by companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
    - InspiredIdiot 5y ago
      Escalating fees still seems like a great way to limit the damage to small investors while turning the screws on NPEs, though. If the owners of capital can form this monopsony hurting small investors in the escalating fees case wouldn't they be able to do the same in the constant fee case? Is the proposition that they would be able to keep the monopsony together better with a bigger incentive (avoiding potentially high patent fees once they escalate)? It seems to me that yes it doesn't do much to reduce the use of patents by Big Tech that they are actually commercializing. It would be nice to solve all the problems but it seems like it solves some of the problems that almost everyone but NPEs can agree on in a neat way without too much collateral damage.
akersten 5y ago
If there were a political candidate whose sole platform was "dismantle the US Patent Office," I could look past almost any other position in my conviction to vote for them. That's how harmful I believe the current patent system to be. Innovators should not be afraid to be sued over trivial implements by non-practicing entities before they can even get their business off the ground. Patents kill innovation, 100%.
- procombo 5y ago
  The U.S. had a president not too long ago who tried to shake things up. Ended up giving the patent office truckloads of cash, considered it "job creation". Goal was to improve efficiency, but all it did was unthrottle submissions, and lower quality. On paper, it looked more efficient, apparently. The U.S. also "harmonized" their patent laws with the rest of the world to reward paper-pushers who are "first to file", instead of those who are "first to invent." Should have been the other way around. That with lowering submission fees and requirements drastically, those efforts basically turned the office into an even bigger joke. Getting a patent means virtually nothing without enforcement and protection, and that requires litigation.
  - jahnu 5y ago
    First to file has some advantages that are hard to ignore. It incentivises early submission which means we all learn from it earlier. It disincentivises submarine patents where one party deliberately hides an obvious invention until another market player has established a business and then proves they invented it first.
gentleman11 5y ago
Strangely, after the patents for mechanical keyboard switches expired, keyboard prices seemed to have doubled or tripled, except for the really crappy Amazon ones that break after 6 months (I’ve been through two)
- techrat 5y ago
  Then stop buying the crappy ones. Like with anything else, you get what you pay for.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - gentleman11 5y ago
    That’s rude. 10 years ago I could buy a $75-100 keyboard that would last 6 years. Now the same money gets me something that lasts 6 months so I have to spend $270 to get one that’s decently made. Old $20 keyboards from thrift stores and the drug store used to last me 5-10 years. But yeah, everyone should spend $250+ or else they are chumps
    - techrat 5y ago
      Leopold. $109. One of the best boards you can get. https://mechanicalkeyboards.com/shop/index.php?l=product_list&c=358 https://mechanicalkeyboards.com/shop/index.php?l=product_lis... It's not rude to point out that you impulsively bought low end stuff and expected it to be better just because it was "mechanical." Lemons and garbage exist in every product category.
robinsoh 5y ago
> Likewise, e-ink devices have largely had no innovation due to the patents of the e-ink corporation being used to stifle innovation. Uhm... I work in the display industry and have never heard this. They seem to be a typical display manufacturer progressing at what is decent or maybe even above average for display industry products. Could you clarify what patent you're referring to and what exactly you mean by no innovation?
dalbasal 5y ago
Pharmaceutical patents, operatively, are really more about latter stage of drug development (human trials, regulatory approval, etc.) than they are about invention and discovery. A limited monopoly (or alternatives, such as bounties) make sense here, but we could drop the patent designation altogether. In fact, working through a patent frame can get in the way. Drugs that aren't patentable fall outside the framework and therefore have no funding mechanism for these later frameworks. Start the clock at approval. Drop the limitations. Prior art Business models, software & obvious/trivial inventions were never supposed to be patentable, and technically aren't. The fact that they often are in practice is an argument for reform. One-click remains the perfect example, as it falls into all three categories. Also, look at the state of the patent "industry." Patent trolls. Admit-nothing mutual licensing agreements. Patent arsenals held for defense. The Apple-Samsung war, with no result or benefit to either.
aeturnum 5y ago
It seems like a slightly weaker patent system where the holder only retains the right to share in the profits on a piece of technology would solve most of the problems. Like, once you publish a patent, anyone who uses it needs to pay you a meaningful portion of profit they derive from using it. The patent holder still has most of the incentive to use it, but R&D on the patent would be fully open and incur no fee. Third parties could sell improvements back to the patent holder or file their own patents on the improvements.
alok-g 5y ago
>> Patents clearly kill innovation. Like, that shouldn't even be a question. Surely there are examples where patents have stifled innovation. I am unclear how this would apply in general. The idea of patents is to encourage inventors or organizations "invest" into research and development to create inventions and reap rewards for their investments. If there were no patent protection (and ignoring other forms of intellectual property for sake of simplicity), then inventors or organizations would either (a) not put money into any inventions that could easily be copied by others upon launch, or (b) have measures to keep the inventions hidden even upon launch. In that sense, patents mechanism are intended to lead higher investments towards developing inventions, and, are set up such that the inventions become publicly known and available after respective periods of time. Is the suggestion that the patents should be abolished? If so, one also needs to explain how and why would inventors and organizations spend money into research work leading to good inventions? I agree that problems do happen. There are many patents around which should not have been issued. However, the challenge is not that the law is at fault. The challenge is that execution is at fault wherein many obvious "inventions" get accepted for example. I can accept if the argument made is that good execution of the well-intended patent laws is guaranteed to be a challenge and therefore the patent law does not make any practical sense. However, we also need to be aware of the side effects of it as reduction in innovation because of reduced research and development investments. --- Recommended reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
DerekBickerton 5y ago
> I'm relatively OK with pharmaceutical patents I wish things like Generic Drugs could be applied to other items, like generic paint, generic computer peripherals, etc. The closest thing to generic computer equipment is the Amazon Basics items you can get, and also own-brand groceries which are usually cheaper since they don't spend much money on advertising and fancy packaging
GloriousKoji 5y ago
Ideologically patents are suppose to promote innovation. The original idea and spirit of the law was that for a limited time monopoly you disclose all details on your invention instead of keeping it all a secret to yourself. Obviously this is no longer the case as the problem is (1) too many patents on broad things and (2) too long of a monopoly term for todays fast moving technology. It's been 150 years since we established the patent office and the only big things that were changed was moving from first to invent to first to file and increasing the monopoly term from 17 to 20 years. I think a 5-7 year monopoly term is much more reasonable and would maintain the original spirit of the law.
zehaeva 5y ago
> Software can be protected by copyright. You want software to be protected for the lifetime of the author + 70ish years? 95 years in case of corporate authorship? The Beatles catalogue, released 60 years ago, won't pass into the public domain until 70 years _after_ the last Beatle dies. Maybe my grand kids will see that day. Given that the law almost made the 8 note ostinato from Katy Perry's Dark Horse into a copyrightable bit of music I would weep if we tried to really apply copyright to software.

by cletus 5y ago

bern4444 5y ago

The e-ink patent is so frustrating. Another good example of a patent restricting innovation was the patent on 3D Printers. That's why in the past few years, 3D printers have become so much more prevalent and accessible (you can buy one for a few hundred dollars today). These definitely stifle innovation. I'd think a more reasonable approach could be, you have a patent for 15 years (or whatever arbitrary number is reasonable) or until the patent holder makes some multiple dollar amount from things that use whatever is patented. That is, if it costs a million dollars to develop e-ink screens, the patent is valid until the company has had revenue of 20 million dollars on devices that have e-ink screens. Tying it to revenue instead of profit is intended since profits can be turned into revenue easily to bypass the restriction otherwise. You could also add a minimum number of years (obviously less than the max mentioned above) so companies have some protection across various metrics.

pclmulqdq 5y ago
In the EU, patents have escalating fees. They don't escalate very fast, but I think this would help with innovation a lot. IMO the first ~4 years can cost a few thousand dollars (so you can get your startup up and running), but the 20th year of a patent should escalate to several hundred thousand or million dollars. That way, building a long-lived "patent fence" becomes economically infeasible the way it is today.
- chongli 5y ago
  Economically infeasible for NPEs, sure, but still a rounding error for Big Tech. The issue with schemes that make it difficult for NPEs is that they hurt the small inventor who cannot afford to capitalize their invention. Owners of capital may be able to form a monopsony to drive down the price of patent licenses and essentially squeeze out small inventors.
  - motives 5y ago
    Just as an example, IBM receives almost 10,000 patents a year. At $100,000-$1,000,000 per patent, that year of patents alone in 15-20 years time would cost $1-10 billion. That is most definitely not a rounding error and would constitute as much as 10% of their annual revenue just to keep that single years worth of patents. I think this sort of escalating pricing scheme would definitely help reduce the barriers for startups and new innovators, and prevent abuse by companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
  - InspiredIdiot 5y ago
    Escalating fees still seems like a great way to limit the damage to small investors while turning the screws on NPEs, though. If the owners of capital can form this monopsony hurting small investors in the escalating fees case wouldn't they be able to do the same in the constant fee case? Is the proposition that they would be able to keep the monopsony together better with a bigger incentive (avoiding potentially high patent fees once they escalate)? It seems to me that yes it doesn't do much to reduce the use of patents by Big Tech that they are actually commercializing. It would be nice to solve all the problems but it seems like it solves some of the problems that almost everyone but NPEs can agree on in a neat way without too much collateral damage.

akersten 5y ago

If there were a political candidate whose sole platform was "dismantle the US Patent Office," I could look past almost any other position in my conviction to vote for them. That's how harmful I believe the current patent system to be. Innovators should not be afraid to be sued over trivial implements by non-practicing entities before they can even get their business off the ground. Patents kill innovation, 100%.

procombo 5y ago
The U.S. had a president not too long ago who tried to shake things up. Ended up giving the patent office truckloads of cash, considered it "job creation". Goal was to improve efficiency, but all it did was unthrottle submissions, and lower quality. On paper, it looked more efficient, apparently. The U.S. also "harmonized" their patent laws with the rest of the world to reward paper-pushers who are "first to file", instead of those who are "first to invent." Should have been the other way around. That with lowering submission fees and requirements drastically, those efforts basically turned the office into an even bigger joke. Getting a patent means virtually nothing without enforcement and protection, and that requires litigation.
- jahnu 5y ago
  First to file has some advantages that are hard to ignore. It incentivises early submission which means we all learn from it earlier. It disincentivises submarine patents where one party deliberately hides an obvious invention until another market player has established a business and then proves they invented it first.

gentleman11 5y ago

Strangely, after the patents for mechanical keyboard switches expired, keyboard prices seemed to have doubled or tripled, except for the really crappy Amazon ones that break after 6 months (I’ve been through two)

techrat 5y ago
Then stop buying the crappy ones. Like with anything else, you get what you pay for.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gentleman11 5y ago
  That’s rude. 10 years ago I could buy a $75-100 keyboard that would last 6 years. Now the same money gets me something that lasts 6 months so I have to spend $270 to get one that’s decently made. Old $20 keyboards from thrift stores and the drug store used to last me 5-10 years. But yeah, everyone should spend $250+ or else they are chumps
  - techrat 5y ago
    Leopold. $109. One of the best boards you can get. https://mechanicalkeyboards.com/shop/index.php?l=product_list&c=358 https://mechanicalkeyboards.com/shop/index.php?l=product_lis... It's not rude to point out that you impulsively bought low end stuff and expected it to be better just because it was "mechanical." Lemons and garbage exist in every product category.

robinsoh 5y ago

> Likewise, e-ink devices have largely had no innovation due to the patents of the e-ink corporation being used to stifle innovation. Uhm... I work in the display industry and have never heard this. They seem to be a typical display manufacturer progressing at what is decent or maybe even above average for display industry products. Could you clarify what patent you're referring to and what exactly you mean by no innovation?

dalbasal 5y ago

Pharmaceutical patents, operatively, are really more about latter stage of drug development (human trials, regulatory approval, etc.) than they are about invention and discovery. A limited monopoly (or alternatives, such as bounties) make sense here, but we could drop the patent designation altogether. In fact, working through a patent frame can get in the way. Drugs that aren't patentable fall outside the framework and therefore have no funding mechanism for these later frameworks. Start the clock at approval. Drop the limitations. Prior art Business models, software & obvious/trivial inventions were never supposed to be patentable, and technically aren't. The fact that they often are in practice is an argument for reform. One-click remains the perfect example, as it falls into all three categories. Also, look at the state of the patent "industry." Patent trolls. Admit-nothing mutual licensing agreements. Patent arsenals held for defense. The Apple-Samsung war, with no result or benefit to either.

aeturnum 5y ago

It seems like a slightly weaker patent system where the holder only retains the right to share in the profits on a piece of technology would solve most of the problems. Like, once you publish a patent, anyone who uses it needs to pay you a meaningful portion of profit they derive from using it. The patent holder still has most of the incentive to use it, but R&D on the patent would be fully open and incur no fee. Third parties could sell improvements back to the patent holder or file their own patents on the improvements.

alok-g 5y ago

>> Patents clearly kill innovation. Like, that shouldn't even be a question. Surely there are examples where patents have stifled innovation. I am unclear how this would apply in general. The idea of patents is to encourage inventors or organizations "invest" into research and development to create inventions and reap rewards for their investments. If there were no patent protection (and ignoring other forms of intellectual property for sake of simplicity), then inventors or organizations would either (a) not put money into any inventions that could easily be copied by others upon launch, or (b) have measures to keep the inventions hidden even upon launch. In that sense, patents mechanism are intended to lead higher investments towards developing inventions, and, are set up such that the inventions become publicly known and available after respective periods of time. Is the suggestion that the patents should be abolished? If so, one also needs to explain how and why would inventors and organizations spend money into research work leading to good inventions? I agree that problems do happen. There are many patents around which should not have been issued. However, the challenge is not that the law is at fault. The challenge is that execution is at fault wherein many obvious "inventions" get accepted for example. I can accept if the argument made is that good execution of the well-intended patent laws is guaranteed to be a challenge and therefore the patent law does not make any practical sense. However, we also need to be aware of the side effects of it as reduction in innovation because of reduced research and development investments. --- Recommended reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

DerekBickerton 5y ago

> I'm relatively OK with pharmaceutical patents I wish things like Generic Drugs could be applied to other items, like generic paint, generic computer peripherals, etc. The closest thing to generic computer equipment is the Amazon Basics items you can get, and also own-brand groceries which are usually cheaper since they don't spend much money on advertising and fancy packaging

GloriousKoji 5y ago

Ideologically patents are suppose to promote innovation. The original idea and spirit of the law was that for a limited time monopoly you disclose all details on your invention instead of keeping it all a secret to yourself. Obviously this is no longer the case as the problem is (1) too many patents on broad things and (2) too long of a monopoly term for todays fast moving technology. It's been 150 years since we established the patent office and the only big things that were changed was moving from first to invent to first to file and increasing the monopoly term from 17 to 20 years. I think a 5-7 year monopoly term is much more reasonable and would maintain the original spirit of the law.

zehaeva 5y ago

> Software can be protected by copyright. You want software to be protected for the lifetime of the author + 70ish years? 95 years in case of corporate authorship? The Beatles catalogue, released 60 years ago, won't pass into the public domain until 70 years _after_ the last Beatle dies. Maybe my grand kids will see that day. Given that the law almost made the 8 note ostinato from Katy Perry's Dark Horse into a copyrightable bit of music I would weep if we tried to really apply copyright to software.